State v. Uber
Court of Appeals of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
LANSING, Judge.
Following the denial of suppression motions, the district court found Stephen Uber guilty of aggravated DWI and violating a restricted driver’s license. Uber challenges both the constitutionality of the traffic stop and the conviction under the aggravated-DWI statute, Minn.Stat. § 169.129 (1998). We affirm the constitutionality of the traffic stop, but we conclude that the aggravated-DWI statute does not apply to restricted licenses and reverse Uber’s conviction under that statute. Because the evidence establishes a DWI violation under Minn.Stat. § 169.121, subd. 3(b)…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. CortezSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- State v. LothenbachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- State v. OthoudtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
- Marben v. State, Department of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
- State v. KvamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State of Minnesota v. Aaron James HelgesonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
- State of Minnesota v. Maurice Antwan HegwoodCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015