On December 6, 2011 the Southern District of Missouri filed the following opinion regarding the inference of operation of a motor vehicle.

In this case, when the officer arrived, the vehicle was stationary and not moving. No witnesses were presented that physically saw the vehicle in Motion. Defendant appeared to be asleep when the office approached the vehicle. While the engine was running, the police office admitted it sounded as though it was having mechanical issues.

The prosecuting must prove two things to win a criminal DWI case. 1. Operation of the Vehicle; 2. While intoxicated.

In this case, as the engine was running, significant additional evidence of driving is not required.

As defendant was in the driver’s seat when the officer approached and the vehicle was running, the jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant was positioned as necessary to operate the vehicle.

To read the case, click here.

The attorneys at PulledOver.com keep up to date on all the new changes and court decisions for Missouri DWI law. If you have been arrested for DWI in Missouri, you need a top Missouri DWI Attorney to protect your legal rights.

Jefferson City, MO

Missouri’s chief justice told lawmakers on Wednesday that putting more nonviolent offenders in prison is not the answer to the state’s drunk driving problems.

“Perhaps the biggest waste of resources in all of state government is the over-incarceration of nonviolent offenders and our mishandling of drug and alcohol offenders. It is costing us billions of dollars and it is not making a dent in crime,” Justice William Ray Price told the House of Representatives in the annual “state of the judiciary” speech. “We may have been tough on crime, but we have not been smart on crime.”

Price’s speech came hours before a major DWI bill received its first hearing. The bill, proposed by state Rep. Bryan Stevenson, R-Webb City, would require all courts in the state to enter DWI convictions into a statewide clearinghouse, making it easier for multiple drunken driving offenders to be prosecuted. The bill would also increase penalties for some multiple offenders and reduce the sentences of those who seek treatment while in prison.

Stevenson stressed that final provision in opening the hearing, with Price in attendance.

“This is directly in line with what Justice Price was talking about this morning,” Stevenson said.

The issue of making various changes to the state’s DWI laws promises to be one of the more high-profile debates of the 2010 legislative session.

In a series of stories in 2009, the Post-Dispatch found that persistent drunken drivers were routinely avoiding felony charges; plea deals were allowing many repeat offenders to avoid convictions; and drivers who refused blood-alcohol tests were not missing a day of driving.

Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, called for reforms in the series’ wake, and in December he proposed legislation that would crack down on the most severely intoxicated drivers and enforce better tracking of prior offenses.

Tracking of the offenses — and deciding which cases get moved from municipal courts to circuit courts — received much of the attention in Wednesday afternoon’s hearing.

Trying to enforce Missouri’s existing tougher laws on repeat offenders is difficult, said St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch, because some municipalities don’t keep good enough records on first-time DWI offenders. Without those records, McCulloch said, it’s impossible to impose tough sentences on the most dangerous offenders.

McCulloch testified that he was in favor of most of the provisions in Stevenson’s bill, but he warned that moving too many cases to circuit courts, without increasing funding for the courts, would be problematic.

That point was part of Price’s morning speech, as he said that the state’s funding for drug courts has lagged behind. Those courts focus less on punishment and more on treating the offender’s underlying drug or alcohol problem, an approach that Price said should be applied in similar DWI courts.

“The goal is always to have safer highways, not spend millions of dollars on putting people in prison if they don’t need to be there,” Price said in an interview. “Our laws are as strict and harsh as any in the nation. But we need to make them more practical.”

McCulloch agreed with Price’s approach, suggesting that it’s better to have a first-time offender back on the road with a restricted license than to take away his driving privileges only to have him back in court for driving without a license.

Stevenson said he supports more funding for DWI courts, though the provision isn’t in the bill he presented Wednesday.

Other DWI bills have been presented in the Senate by Sen. Jolie Justus, D-Kansas City, and Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Lee’s Summit.

At a hearing earlier this week, Bartle said he hoped the Legislature would pass a bill “free of gubernatorial politics.”

“If we just end up with a DWI bill that just puts more people behind bars, we will have done nothing to reduce drunk driving,” he said.

\
Missouri DWI Criminal Defense Attorneys

Jefferson City, MO

Legislation being touted by Gov. Jay Nixon could cause some big changes concerning how driving-while-intoxicated charges are handled by police and the courts.

Along with judges, prosecutors and anti-drunken-driving advocates, Mr. Nixon has proposed changes to DWI laws following problems with some court systems in the state.

The proposals include: requiring repeat DWI offenders, drivers with a blood-alcohol level of 0.15 or more, and drivers who refuse to submit to a blood-alcohol test, to be charged in a state court; cracking down on first-time offenders with a BAC of 0.15 or more; and expanding ignition interlock system use.

While Buchanan County has had its share of drunken drivers, a Buchanan County prosecutor’s report showed 525 DWI charges out of 527 arrests for the crime in 2008.

*
The urgent problems, Buchanan County Prosecutor Dwight Scroggins said, stem from the eastern side of the state.

Currently, drivers can refuse a Breathalyzer test if they are pulled over for driving under the influence, though it results in an automatic one-year license suspension. The case then is taken to two courts: criminal court for the DWI, and civil court for the suspension. Due to the separation, a decision in one usually doesn’t affect the other.

“What happens, and what was going on in St. Louis, was that … on the criminal side, in order to get them to plead guilty on the DWI … some of the prosecutors were agreeing to let them win on the civil side,” Mr. Scroggins said. “So they let them win on the one-year suspension.”

Due to the complexities of multiple municipal courts, bigger metropolitan areas don’t utilize the same streamlined system as that found in Buchanan County, where the courts are connected to the same database as the sheriff’s department and Missouri State Highway Patrol.

“If you have a connected state court system like St. Joe, where they do things the way they’re supposed to do them, it goes into that same system,” Mr. Scroggins said. “You go to St. Louis County, where there’s 94 different municipalities, and some follow it, some don’t.”

The communication breakdown helped drivers convicted of several DWIs in multiple courts avoid receiving potentially harsher sentences, Mr. Scroggins said. “As far as they know, it’s a first offense,” he said. “So they never go to jail, they never go to state court.”

Legislation is being written by Rep. Bryan Stevenson. R-Joplin, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, with help from Rep. Rachel Bringer, D-Palmyra, a former prosecutor, with hopes of filling in the cracks of faulty court systems. If passed, one of the biggest changes to affect Buchanan County would be having any person who blows more than a 0.15 BAC on a Breathalyzer test go to state court. Currently in St. Joseph, the minimum for state court on a first offense is 0.20.

“All the research will tell you that (more than) a 0.13 to 0.15, when people are driving, you’re dealing in all likelihood with a repeat drunk driver, whether they have any prior arrests or convictions or not,” Mr. Scroggins said.

Other legislation includes a more thorough alcohol assessment for first-time offenders, expansion of the ignition interlock system in vehicles, and making it a crime to refuse a Breathalyzer test.

Mr. Scroggins said the new approaches would help safeguard people.

“It’s clear to us that, in order to (keep drunken drivers off the road), we’re going to have fix these other things,” he said.

St. Louis, MO DWI Attorney

Missouri SR-22 Filing Proof of Financial Responsibility

Jefferson City, MO

Intent on making Missouri roadways a safer place, one of the major objectives of the 2010 regular session is to come up with reforms to the state’s drunken driving laws.

Gov. Jay Nixon has proposed sweeping changes that would crack down on the worst offenders of Missouri’s driving-while-intoxicated law and enforce better tracking of prior offenses.

“There are simply too many gaps in our current system,” Nixon said. “We must take bold and decisive steps to reform the way DWI cases are dealt with.”

Plans call for taking thousands of drunken driving cases out of municipal courts and having them heard in state courts.

The governor and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle are looking to make changes as recent national drunken driving statistics show that more than half of alcohol-impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes blew in excess of 0.15.

Missouri law makes it illegal to drive with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent.

Many states have rules in place targeting “hard core” drunken drivers, and Missouri officials want to add the state to the list.

Nixon’s initiative calls for making it a crime to refuse a blood-alcohol test. Those drivers, repeat DWI offenders, and anyone who registers in excess of 0.15 percent would have to go before a state court and be subject to steeper penalties.

Ignition interlocks would be required for anyone who was over 0.15 percent and found to be driving or who refused to submit to a roadside test.

Currently, refusing a blood-alcohol test can result in one-year suspensions of offenders licenses. But the governor said it is one of the state’s biggest loopholes. He said that many drivers go to municipal court where they are successful in pleading down their charges and avoiding both a DWI charge and suspension of their license.

Also on the agenda is a requirement that local police and courts enter DWI arrest and case information into the Missouri Highway Patrol’s tracking system, which is now voluntary. Failure to comply could result in withheld grant money.

DWI Lawyers – St. Louis, MO

Missouri SR-22 Insurance Quotes

St. Louis, MO

Gov. Jay Nixon on Wednesday proposed sweeping reforms to the state’s DWI law that would crack down on the most severely intoxicated drivers and enforce better tracking of prior offenses.

The Democratic governor said his proposal had bipartisan support, which would be essential in the Republican-controlled Legislature.

He laid out his proposal in the Overland office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, in front of portraits of people killed by drunken drivers. He was flanked by the House sponsor, Rep. Bryan Stevenson, R-Joplin, and co-sponsor Rep. Rachel Bringer, D-Palmyra.

The governor also visited Hannibal and Jackson to discuss the legislation. A bill had not been prefiled Wednesday.

Nixon promised reforms last month after the Post-Dispatch exposed failures by St. Louis area police, prosecutors and judges to punish drunken drivers.

The newspaper found that persistent drunken drivers were routinely avoiding felony charges, plea deals were allowing many repeat offenders to avoid convictions, and drivers who refused blood-alcohol tests were not missing a day of driving.

“Today we are presenting comprehensive reforms that will make Missouri safer by strengthening and reinforcing our drunken driving laws,” Nixon said Wednesday.

He did not detail how much the reforms would cost or who would pay.
MORE METRO
bullet Video: Nixon proposes stronger DWI laws
bullet Special Report: DWI
bullet Get news, columns, photos and multimedia from the St. Louis area

Some of Nixon’s proposals directly addressed failures identified by the Post-Dispatch investigation.

For example, the bill would take thousands of DWI cases out of municipal courts annually. The Post-Dispatch found that few DWI cases in municipal courts in the St. Louis area resulted in convictions.

Under Nixon’s plan, all repeat DWI offenders, drivers with a blood-alcohol level of 0.15 or above, and drivers who refuse to submit to a blood-alcohol test would be charged in state courts, where the most serious cases are prosecuted.

That would be a sea change in how DWIs are handled locally. The majority of DWI cases in the St. Louis area go through municipal courts.

Slightly more than half of all drivers who were given blood-alcohol tests registered at least 0.15, according to the newspaper’s analysis of more than 25,000 DWI arrests.

It was unclear how prepared state courts would be to handle a major influx of cases, or whether municipalities would suffer from a reduction in revenue.

Last month, St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch expressed support for letting municipal courts manage DWI cases for most first- and second-time DWI defendants. Under Nixon’s plan, many of those cases would end up on the desks of county prosecutors, where the governor said they would be handled more equitably. McCulloch could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

At least one veteran municipal prosecutor said he thought shifting cases from municipal to state courts was appropriate.

“State courts have more power than we do,” said Darold Crotzer, the Clayton prosecutor. “Some of those drivers need to go to jail, and it’s difficult for us to send them to jail because the money comes right out of the police budget.”

Nixon also called for requiring local police departments and courts to use the Missouri Highway Patrol’s DWI tracking system, which is now voluntary.

The Post-Dispatch found that poor record-keeping often prevented local authorities from recognizing when a driver had prior offenses and could be charged with a felony under Missouri’s “three strikes” law.

Departments that fail to comply could be penalized by having grant money withheld, similar to sanctions in place for cities that fail to report traffic stop data.

Nixon also proposed making it illegal to refuse a blood-alcohol test. Under current law, drivers who refuse the test face an automatic one-year revocation of their licenses.

That’s one of the harshest sanctions in the state law. But the newspaper found that prosecutors often bargain away those suspensions as part of plea deals in criminal cases, letting uncooperative drivers keep their licenses.

Prosecutors said it was a tool to get guilty pleas in cases that were tough to win without test results proving the drivers were drunk.

Nixon’s staff said it wasn’t decided yet whether a criminal sanction would replace license revocation.

A few criminal defense lawyers scoffed at the idea of criminalizing the refusal to take a breath test. Gary Earlywine, a lawyer who specializes in traffic cases in St. Charles and St. Louis counties, noted that DWI defendants often face other traffic charges, such as careless and imprudent driving.

A charge of refusing to take a breath test “would just be another one you could arrange a settlement on,” he said.

Nixon also called for harsher sanctions in cases where drivers refuse a blood-alcohol test or register at least 0.15 percent, including forcing them to get a device that prevents a vehicle from starting if the driver has alcohol in his system. Currently the device is required only for repeat offenders.

The thinking is that the high blood-alcohol content would signal a problem drinker — someone who poses more of a threat than someone who made a one-time mistake of having one too many.

Travis Noble, a local defense lawyer who specializes in DWI cases, said the threshold for harsher penalties seemed arbitrary.

St. Louis, MO DWI Defense Lawyers

Jefferson City, MO

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has summoned police, judges, prosecutors and anti-DWI advocates to Jefferson City on Wednesday to discuss ways to better enforce the state’s drunken driving laws.

Nixon spokesman Scott Holste said Nixon plans to have about two dozen people meet in the Truman Building to talk about ways to “close the gaps” in how the state handles DWIs.

Nixon called last month for revamping the state’s DWI laws “to improve a system that’s riddled with loopholes and dark corners.” He spoke in reaction to our stories that have exposed failures to punish drunken drivers.

The first installment found that authorities routinely fail to charge persistent drunken drivers with felonies, as the law allows. The second installment showed how metro St. Louis courts routinely plea-bargain away DWI convictions, even for many repeat offenders.

We published the third installment of our series on Sunday, reporting how prosecutors are ignoring a law that’s supposed to suspend the licenses of people who don’t cooperate with police during their arrest.

The law says those arrested have to provide blood-alcohol samples to police (commonly by breathing into a machine). Those that don’t are supposed to lose their licenses for a year, no matter what the criminal courts do. But they can also file appeals to try to keep their licenses. Prosecutors are supposed to try to win those appeals, but they routinely, purposely lose them as part of plea bargains.

Earlier this afternoon, we asked prosecutors in Jefferson, St. Charles and St. Louis counties if they are considering changes to their policies. A spokesman for St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert P. McCulloch said he’s checking. Prosecutors in the other two counties haven’t returned emails so far.

Missouri DWI Defense Lawyers

Jefferson City, MO

Gov. Jay Nixon is working with lawmakers this week to form a plan that will tighten loopholes in the state’s current DWI laws.

Nixon’s decision to reform the law came after an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch brought light to people charged with DWI’s and never convicted. In 2008 law enforcement arrested more than 9,000 people for alcohol and drug-related driving. Just under 40 percent of those people were actually convicted. Nixon’s goal is to hold more accountability for those who are arrested for DWI’s.

The issue is hitting home for one Mid-Missouri woman who was involved in an alcohol-related accident in 1996.

“My offender, who injured seven people, giving two of us permanent disabilities, he received 120 days in the Department of Corrections,” said Phaedra Olsen. “I received a lifetime sentence in a wheelchair.”

The accident paralyzed Olsen, and she says too many offenders get off without proper punishment.

“Enough is enough,” she said. “It’s time to be there for the families and to be there for those that we can do whatever it takes to geminate drunk driving.”

Olsen said it appears that offenders often have more rights than the victims do, and that offenders are also sometimes treated with more respect than the victim’s families.

Nixon spokesman Scott Holste said he is not certain of the details of the reform yet. He said he only knows that Nixon will meet with legislators sometime this week to get the plans started.

To see a breakdown of DWI’s and Convictions by counties in the Mid-Missouri area, click on the web extra to the right.

Missouri DWI Criminal Defense Attorneys

Columbia, MO

A Saturday night in spring 2007 was supposed to be a special occasion for Debra Strodtman — a weekend visit from her youngest daughter in college — but it turned into her family’s worst nightmare.

Strodtman remembers at 10:30 p.m. hearing a knock on the door of the family’s home in Salisbury. She jumped out of bed, headed to the door and envisioned staying up half the night talking with her daughter, Heidi Strodtman, a 19-year-old freshman at the University of Missouri-Rolla.

Instead, a Missouri State Highway Patrol trooper, sheriff’s deputy and family friend were at their door to break the news that Heidi had been killed in a wreck on Highway 63.

“There were three sets of eyes staring through my door, and I knew immediately,” Debra Strodtman said. “And” the trooper “said, ‘A drunk driver killed your daughter tonight.’ ”

Debra Strodtman and her husband, Bruce Strodtman, shared the story yesterday of that fateful night with 13 people on probation for various offenses.

Their testimony was part of a session of the Impact of Crime on Victims Class at the Board of Probation and Parole Office at 1512 Hereford Drive.

They also shared more stories with the offenders: about the autopsy of Heidi’s body, the funeral preparations and the heart-wrenching courtroom proceedings that followed.

They carried with them a piece of the mangled Pontiac their daughter was driving north on Highway 63 on April 21, 2007, about 15 miles north of Columbia, when Don Thompson was driving the wrong direction on the same highway and slammed his pickup into her car.

Thompson, 49, of Mexico, Mo., pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and is serving a 15-year prison sentence.

“Burying your own child is the single most difficult thing on Earth to do,” Bruce Strodtman told the class. “You can’t explain it.”

The Strodtmans spoke for about an hour to members of the class, a few of whom are on probation for drunken driving offenses. The class consists of 10 weekly sessions addressing crimes that range from domestic assault to robbery and drunken driving.

David Meyer, a unit supervisor in Columbia’s probation and parole office, said the class has been taught for years in prisons, but the Missouri Department of Corrections recently expanded the program to probation offices across the state, including the Columbia office. The classes, taught locally by Behavioral Health Concepts of Columbia at a cost of about $2,000 a year, started in Columbia in October.

“Once they actually hear a victim tell their story about the consequences of someone else’s actions, it really sinks in,” Meyer said.

The Strodtmans’ presentation made an impression on at least one of the students.

“It’s just really touching,” said Shaneika Barney, 21, of Columbia, who said she was on probation for passing bad checks. “It makes me not want to drink at all. I have two kids of my own, and the thought of losing one of mine is too much.”

Bruce Strodtman said talking to the classes is a way to honor his daughter, who would be celebrating her 22nd birthday today.

“If I were to do 100 of these and save one life, it’d be worth it,” he said. “In a little way, it keeps my daughter alive.”

Missouri Drunken Driving Criminal Defense Lawyers

Joplin, MO

Tougher laws needed, some victims claim

Heather Jensen, 29, spent four years in prison for killing her best friend while driving under the influence of methamphetamines. She called her sentence a slap on the wrist.

“I should have gotten more time,” Jensen, of Webb City, said.

Today, Jensen is a proponent of tougher sentences for anyone involved in driving while under the influence of any substance or for providing drugs or alcohol to minors, especially if someone dies because of it.

Jensen isn’t alone.

Police officers, victims’ families and others are calling for tougher penalties for those involved in the deaths of teenagers when alcohol, drugs, recklessness or negligence is involved.

Missouri law

Dan Whitworth, a general practice attorney in Joplin, said penalties for driving under the influence, being a minor in possession or selling or providing alcohol to a minor vary from a fine to 5 to 15 years behind bars.

A minor who is driving is considered intoxicated at a much lower level than adults, he said. Minors can be arrested for DWI at 0.02, while adults have to register 0.08. People can be charged with driving under the influence of drugs with any amount of the drug in their system, Whitworth said.

A first-offense DUI is a Class B misdemeanor in Missouri punishable by a fine of up to $500 and six months in jail. Repeat offenders can get progressively more serious fines and jail time — up to $5,000 and 5 to 15 years in prison, according to Missouri statutes.

“You do see people get that much but they really have to be a perpetual offender,” Whitworth said.

In Missouri, minors also can be charged with possession of alcohol if they are found with the bottle, or with alcohol in their blood stream. That minor in possession by consumption law is unique to Missouri, Whitworth said. The penalty for being a minor in possession is similar to, but lower, than the beginning penalty for DWI or DUI.

Providing alcohol to a minor, either by selling it as a retailer or furnishing it to them as a friend or parent also carries a fine of $500 and not more than 6 months in jail. On the second offense, Whitworth said that penalty can jump to a fine of up to $1,000 and one year in county jail.

Businesses that sell to minors can also face other penalties as well. The employee who sold the alcohol can be fined or charged as well as the business.

Tougher laws needed, some victims claim

“They’re looking for repeat violations,” he said. “(Alcohol Control) is very serious with how they do it. They make those businesses stay on their toes.”

The record

Records from the Missouri Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control indicate most businesses that sell alcohol to minors are generally fined, or at most lose their liquor license for just a few days.

According to documents obtained through a Missouri Open Records request, there were 43 alcohol retailers in Jasper and Newton counties cited for selling alcohol to a minor from Jan. 1, 2006, to the present. Most of those businesses were fined, with fines ranging from $150 to $700. The average fine was $200 to $400. Several businesses caught during that time were only warned. Four of the businesses were suspended from selling alcohol for up to 5 days as a penalty; none had their licenses permanently revoked.

Documents provided by the state agency also suggest a varied response to repeat offenses.

A Kum & Go, 3505 S. Range Line Road, was cited on Jan. 7 and again on Jan. 28, 2006, for selling to minors, but only received warnings each time. A Grace Energy location, 3347 Range Line Road, was cited March 16 and again on May 18, 2007, and received fines of $500 and $700 respectively.

“I don’t think they are near tough enough,” said Kerry Freeman, head of Jasper County’s Mothers Against Drunk Driving. “I would think they do need to lose their license … pull their license, that would hit their pocketbooks more than a $500 fine.”

Sue Hirshey, owner of Sue’s C-Store, 26206 Fir Road, in Carl Junction, said consistency and observation are needed from the stores to screen underage kids and to ensure adults are not purchasing for minors. Sue’s C-Store has no violations for sales to underage minors.

“It’s just a matter of carding everyone,” Hirshey said in a phone interview.

One situation that Hirshey or her employees have seen is where an adult will enter the store and try to purchase alcohol — with several teens waiting in their car.

Sometimes, it’s just parents buying alcohol for themselves while

“You just have to watch the situation and try to read people,” Hirshey said. “We have refused to sell if it looks like they are taking orders for kids

The Missouri Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control did not return multiple phone calls made to its Jefferson City office over the last two weeks.

Freeman wants tougher sentences not only for retailers but also for any adult who buys it for a minor as well as those who are driving drunk.

Freeman’s 18-year-old daughter, Christina, was killed after getting in the car with a 17-year-old driver, who according to the Missouri State Highway Patrol, had allegedly been using drugs and alcohol. More >>

Jefferson City, MO

The Missouri House gave initial approval Wednesday to a bill designed to increase the use of ignition interlock devices for drunken drivers.

A 2001 law requires ignition interlock devices on vehicles of people convicted of two or more drunken-driving offenses. The House bill, which needs another vote to move to the Senate, requires motorists to prove to the Department of Revenue that they have the device to get their driving privileges reinstated.

An ignition interlock requires a driver to blow into the device, and if the motorist has a blood alcohol content that exceeds the legal limit, the vehicle will not start.

Rep. Neal St. Onge, R-Ballwin, said states that require ignition interlock devices haven’t had as many drunken drivers and even fewer repeat offenders.

Earlier this year, Gov. Matt Blunt called a news conference accusing judges of not doing a good enough job of enforcing Missouri’s drunken-driving laws and requiring ignition interlock devices.

The House bill would allow the Department of Revenue to check whether motorists have gotten the interlock devices.

Lawmakers also added an amendment that would allow municipal convictions for drunken driving to count when determining repeat offenders. That was added to close a loophole exposed by a Missouri Supreme Court decision.