Legal Opinion

State v. Uber

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided December 28, 1999No. C7-99-896PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. United States v. CortezSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. State v. LothenbachSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  3. State v. OthoudtSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1992
  4. Marben v. State, Department of Public SafetySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  5. State v. KvamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1983

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State of Minnesota v. Aaron James HelgesonCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2017
  2. State of Minnesota v. Maurice Antwan HegwoodCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API