Legal Opinion

Peter Burnett and Daniel C. Ryan v. Municipality of Anchorage, Raymond Roop v. State of Alaska

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided December 30, 1986No. 86-3747PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:

The three appellants seek federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 from their state court convictions for refusal to submit to chemical breath tests after being stopped for driving while intoxicated (DWI). The district court, in a well-reasoned decision, 634 F.Supp. 1029, denied the writs, holding that neither the Fourth nor the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution had been violated. We affirm.

FACTS

The facts are undisputed. Peter Burnett, Daniel Ryan and Raymond Roop were lawfully stopped and arrested on separate occasions…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Chimel v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Schmerber v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  3. Mincey v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. United States v. KrasSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  5. MacKey v. MontrymSupreme Court of the United States · 1979

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. State v. RyceSupreme Court of Kansas · 2016
  3. State of Minnesota v. William Robert Bernard, Jr.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2015
  4. State v. BirchfieldNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2015
  5. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. BurnleyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988

34 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