Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Hegstrom, 543 N.W.2d 698.

24 citing documents.

Marianna Kretsu Maki, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2023
Safety , (“[A]n officer need only have one objective indication of intoxication to constitute reasonable and probable grounds to believe a person is under the influence.”); rev. denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2022
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2020
(holding that “the observed symptoms of some type of intoxication, particularly the severely constricted pupils , plus the strong evidence of inattentive driving” were sufficient to establish probable cause to believe the driver was under the influence of a controlled substance); State v. Dri
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
(considering “the observed symptoms of some type of intoxication, particularly the severely constricted pupils” as a factor in establishing probable cause to believe driver was under the influence of a controlled substance).
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
It does not require recklessness or “willful and wanton disregard.” State v. Hegstrom , review denied (Minn. Apr.
Oji Konata Markham, petitioner, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
conflicting evidence.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2019
conflicting evidence.” d 698, 702 (Minn. App. 1996), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
State of Minnesota, Respondent, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
But it does not require proof of “willful and wanton disregard, or reckless conduct.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota, Appellant, Minn. Ct. App. 2018
See State v. Hegstrom , (holding district court erred by assessing the relative credibility and weight of conflicting evidence), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker 888 N.W.2d 348 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
conflicting evidence.” review denied (Minn. Apr.
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jerald Mattison Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Jerald Mattison Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 698, 702 (Minn. App. 1996) (holding that “the observed symptoms of some type of intoxication, particularly the severely constricted pupils” established probable cause to believe driver was under the influence of a controlled substance); LaBeau v. Comm’r of Pub.
Rufus Cornelius Loyd v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Rufus Cornelius Loyd v. Commissioner of Public Safety Minn. Ct. App. 2014
Id.; 702 (Minn. App. 1996) (holding that probable cause existed for arresting a driver for driving while under the influence of a controlled substance when the driver appeared distracted and “out of it,” 6 had severely constricted pupils, and demonstrated inattentiv
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
State v. Al-Naseer 678 N.W.2d 679 Minn. Ct. App. 2004
28, 1999); (“[a] sufficient degree of inattention to the road could constitute a lack of ‘slight care’ that is gross negligence,”), review denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Trei 624 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
State v. Trei 624 N.W.2d 595 Minn. Ct. App. 2001
(trial court’s determination that probable cause was lacking was error where trial court made determination that properly belonged to jury), review denied (Minn. Apr.
In Re the Welfare of C.P.W. 601 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
In Re the Welfare of C.P.W. 601 N.W.2d 204 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
contends the standard is “clearly and unequivocally erroneous” re-meto denied (Minn. Apr.
State v. Pelawa 590 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
State v. Pelawa 590 N.W.2d 142 Minn. Ct. App. 1999
(citation omitted), revieto denied (Minn. Apr.

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by