Ott Law Firm

Missouri Case Party

KRISTINA PROCTOR, Defendant- Missouri Cases

This party appears in the Ott Law Firm Missouri court opinion archive. The cases below connect legal research paths to related practice pages when the opinions map to practical client issues.

Party ID
kristina-proctor-defendant
Cases Shown
1
Top Practice Route
Criminal Law
Archive note: This is a summary of public court records and is not legal advice. Missouri slip opinions may be modified or withdrawn; consult the official source. This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Related Practice Pages

Practical guidance connected to this party profile

These links route party-name research from the court archive into Ott Law Firm practice pages when the associated opinions map to a practical client issue.

Legal Help From The Archive

Need help turning court research into a case plan?

If a party-profile research path points to a current injury, employment, insurance, or litigation issue, Ott Law Firm can review the facts and explain practical next steps.

Cases Involving KRISTINA PROCTOR, Defendant-

Showing up to 50 recent opinion records for this party.

Browse party cases

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District / Nov 30, 2023

STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Appellant vs. KRISTINA PROCTOR, Defendant-Respondent

Respondent

Kristina Proctor was charged with driving while intoxicated, and the trial court suppressed her breath test result because law enforcement read her Missouri's Implied Consent Statements before her Miranda rights. The State of Missouri filed an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court reversed the suppression order, holding that Miranda warnings are not required before reading implied consent statements and requesting a breath test, as this process does not constitute a guilt-seeking interrogation. Consequently, the breath test result is admissible evidence.