State v. Hegstrom

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “the observed symptoms of some type of intoxication, particularly the severely constricted pupils” established probable cause to believe driver was under the influence of a controlled substance
• holding that probable cause existed for arresting a driver for driving while under the influence of a controlled substance when the driver appeared distracted and “out of it,” 6 had severely constricted pupils, and demonstrated inattentive driving

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Trei
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2001-04-10· cited 24×
• State of Minnesota v. Demarcus Lemaine Barker
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2016-12-12· cited 14×
• In Re the Welfare of C.P.W.
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1999-09-21· cited 6×
• State v. Al-Naseer
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 2004-04-27· cited 5×

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• State v. Joon Kyu Kim
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1987-01-02· cited 179×
• State v. Florence
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1976-01-09· cited 56×
• State v. Rud
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1984-12-21· cited 56×
• State, City of Eagan v. Elmourabit
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1985-08-23· cited 18×
• State v. Tinklenberg
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1972-02-11· cited 17×
• State v. VanWert
  Supreme Court of Minnesota· 1989-07-21· cited 10×
• State v. Miller
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1991-06-11· cited 6×
• State v. Plummer
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1994-01-18· cited 5×
• In Re the Welfare of J.G.B.
  Court of Appeals of Minnesota· 1991-07-23· cited 4×