Weatherford v. State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Steele Hays, Justice.
Ronald Weatherford appeals from his conviction of driving while intoxicated in violation of the Omnibus DWI Act, Act 549 of 1983. Our jurisdiction is derived from Rule 26(1 )(c). He bases his appeal on five arguments.
I
Weatherford urges it was error to admit the results of a intoxilyzer test because his right to an additional blood or urine test was not explained to him. The record shows the arresting officer told Weatherford he was entitled to a blood or urine test at his own expense at the Conway Memorial Hospital and that the officer would assist him in obtaining the…
Also in this document: Dissent.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Berkemer v. McCartySupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- Holt v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Pennsylvania v. MunizSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Gardner v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1988
- Karamychev v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2001
- Gundersen v. Municipality of AnchorageCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 1988
- Wright v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.