HETTENHAUSEN v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

HETTENHAUSEN v. Director of Revenue

365 S.W.3d 310, 2012 WL 1500055, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 607

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided May 1, 2012·No. WD 73677·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Ryan Hettenhausen appeals the judgment of the trial court upholding the administrative revocation of his driving privileges for refusal to submit to a chemical analysis of his breath. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that he was driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

*311 The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Ryan Hettenhausen appeals the judgment of the trial court upholding the administrative revocation of his driving privileges for refusal to submit to a chemical analysis of his breath. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe that he was driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Because a published opinion would have no prece-dential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

*311 The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

HETTENHAUSEN v. Director of Revenue, 365 S.W.3d 310, 2012 WL 1500055, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 607 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

365 S.W.3d 310 (HETTENHAUSEN v. Director of Revenue) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related