Legal Opinion

Hourigan v. Commonwealth

Kentucky Supreme Court

Decided January 22, 1998No. 95-SC-870-DG, 95-SC-1101-DG, 96-SC-00463-DGPublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEPHENS, Chief Justice.

This case represents a consolidation of three separate cases dealing with various issues concerning driving under the influence [hereinafter “DUI”]. Ultimately, we granted discretionary review of these cases to determine two issues: (1) whether Section 11 of Kentucky’s Constitution requires Miranda warnings to be given to a DUI suspect prior to the administration of field sobriety tests requiring verbal statements, and (2) whether the pre-arrest suspension of a driver’s privileges constitutes “punishment”, thus prohibiting the subsequent imposition of punishment for…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  3. Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  4. United States v. HalperSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. United States v. UrserySupreme Court of the United States · 1996

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Welch v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Hyatt v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Dixon v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Little v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Commonwealth v. StephensonKentucky Supreme Court · 2002

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API