Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Hager v. Commissioner of Public Safety, 382 N.W.2d 907.

47 citing documents.

State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
Safety, (stating that a driv er’s odor of alcohol provided reasonable suspicion of driving while impaired and a legal basis for a preliminary breath test).
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Christopher Gary Zurek Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Safety, see also LaBeau v. Comm’r of Pub.
Damon Dewitt Tackett v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Damon Dewitt Tackett v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Quentin Keith Orsten v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Quentin Keith Orsten v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Safety, (stating that a driver’s bloodshot and watery eyes and an odor of 4 alcohol provided reasonable suspicion of DWI and a legal basis for a PBT).
Kristin Marie Poeschel v. Commissioner of Public Safety 871 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Kristin Marie Poeschel v. Commissioner of Public Safety 871 N.W.2d 39 Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lawrence Zabinski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
State of Minnesota v. Patrick Lawrence Zabinski Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Safety, (“General allegations that test results were affected by a substance, without specific proof, cannot be used to invalidate the test results.”) Zabinski also fails to show that the BCA’s existing quality-control mechanism— the use of a preservative that prevents glucose fermentation in
Ryan James Dekok v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Ryan James Dekok v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2015
Safety, d 907, 911 (Minn. App. 1986).
Gerald John Westman v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Gerald John Westman v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Safety, (officer’s observation that defendant had bloodshot and watery eyes, smelled of alcohol, and failed a preliminary breath test supported probable cause to arrest for DWI).
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2014
State of Minnesota v. Paul Joseph Cunningham Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Safety, (holding that officer had reasonable suspicion to administer preliminary breath test when driver’s eyes were bloodshot and watery and he smelled of alcohol).
State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
State v. Klamar 823 N.W.2d 687 Minn. Ct. App. 2012
Safety, (stating that a driver’s bloodshot and watery eyes and an odor of alcohol provided reasonable suspicion of driving while impaired and a legal basis for a preliminary breath test).
Schulz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 760 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Schulz v. Commissioner of Public Safety 760 N.W.2d 331 Minn. Ct. App. 2009
Safety, -12 (Minn.App.1986).
Roettger v. Commissioner of Public Safety 633 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Roettger v. Commissioner of Public Safety 633 N.W.2d 70 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
Bond v. Commissioner of Public Safety 570 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Bond v. Commissioner of Public Safety 570 N.W.2d 804 Minn. Ct. App. 1997
Haveri v. Commissioner of Public Safety 552 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Haveri v. Commissioner of Public Safety 552 N.W.2d 762 Minn. Ct. App. 1996
Safety, -12 (Minn.App.1986); see also Davis v. Commissioner of Pub.
Ruffenach v. Commissioner of Public Safety 528 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Ruffenach v. Commissioner of Public Safety 528 N.W.2d 254 Minn. Ct. App. 1995
Safety, (“[t]he only advisory that the police must give a person under the implied consent law is that mandated by statute”).
Lundquist v. Commissioner of Public Safety 411 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Wickern 411 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
State v. Wickern 411 N.W.2d 597 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Lundquist v. Commissioner of Public Safety 411 N.W.2d 608 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
we affirmed the trial court determination that the officer had probable cause to believe the driver had been driving while under the influence, where the officer observed the driver’s eyes were bloodshot and watery, his breath had an odor of an alcoholic beverage, and he failed the preliminary
Young v. Commissioner of Public Safety 408 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Young v. Commissioner of Public Safety 408 N.W.2d 212 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
DeBoer v. Commissioner of Public Safety 406 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
DeBoer v. Commissioner of Public Safety 406 N.W.2d 43 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hounsell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 401 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
Hounsell v. Commissioner of Public Safety 401 N.W.2d 94 Minn. Ct. App. 1987
an officer administered a breath test only five minutes after removing gum from a driver’s mouth.
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 392 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Johnson v. Commissioner of Public Safety 392 N.W.2d 359 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Schwarzrock v. Commissioner of Public Safety 388 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Schwarzrock v. Commissioner of Public Safety 388 N.W.2d 425 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(test valid with 86% correlation); (no error in admitting test with correlation of 88%).
State v. Vievering 383 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Melin v. Commissioner of Public Safety 384 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
State v. Vievering 383 N.W.2d 729 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
Melin v. Commissioner of Public Safety 384 N.W.2d 474 Minn. Ct. App. 1986
(remnant of a pinch of chewing tobacco); (chewing gum); (driver failed to show that low simulator reading “would unduly exaggerate the subject’s test results”).