Taking care of your traffic ticket is easy, secure, and legal.
- Last Name*
- First Name*
- Email
- Phone
- Charge*
- Jurisdiction*
- Court Date*

Author Archives: wthornburg

Chesterfield Municipal Court

April 23, 2014

Chesterfield Traffic Lawyers

St. Louis County – 21st Judicial Circuit
The Chesterfield Traffic Lawyers at PulledOver.com can handle it,

Chesterfield Speeding Ticket Defense

Our Chesterfield traffic lawyers handle Chesterfield speeding ticket defense, where “no points” is the goal.

Chesterfield MIP Defense

Our Chesterfield MIP lawyers handle Minor in Possession defense, where the object is keeping your record clean and your driver license from being suspended or revoked.

Chesterfield DWI Defense

Our Chesterfield DWI attorneys handle drunk driving defense, where your driver license and your freedom are at stake.

Let our Chesterfield Traffic Lawyers start helping you today. Contact Us

Chesterfield Traffic Court Information

This page contains Court information Links for Chesterfield, Missouri.

Chesterfield Municipal Court

Nancy Morr, Court Administrator
690 Chesterfield Parkway West
Chesterfield, MO 63017
(636) 537-4718
(636) 537-4798 (facsimile)
http://www.chesterfield.mo.us

Prosecuting Attorney
Timothy Englemeyer

Judge
Hon. Rick Brunk

Court is held on Tuesday Evenings at 7:00pm approximately 3 times per month.

In 2017, the Municipality of Chesterfield filed over 5,000 tickets. Did you get a ticket in the municipality of Chesterfield? What should you do?

If you received a moving violation you have 3 options:

Pay it
Go to court and try to fight it yourself
Hire an attorney.

If you pay it, there will be points assessed to your license. This can cause your insurance rates to go up and/or cause your license to be suspended. Eight points in 18 months can result in a license suspension.

If you try to fight it yourself, the first time you appear in court, your case will not be heard. You will be required to wait and then stand in front of the judge to plead guilty or not guilty. If you plead not guilty, the judge will set your case for trial and you will have to come back at another date. Taking care of the ticket yourself will result in at least two court appearances taking upwards of an hour a piece. Then if you lose, you will be required to pay the fine anyway.

If you hire an attorney, you will likely avoid the appearance and our goal is to get your moving violation amended to a non-moving violation. We have worked in the Chesterfield Municipal Court for over 10 years. We work with the prosecuting attorney to get your ticket reduced. We then notify you via email and hard copy and all you have to do is mail in your payment. Usually this process requires no appearance in court on your part saving you time and energy. For a free consultation, fill out our easy ticket submission form and one of our attorneys will contact you

Probable cause can be a factual issue to be determined by the trial court

April 23, 2014

In State of Missouri vs. Kathryn Avent, the Western District of Missouri Court of Appeals upheld Defendant’s Motion to Suppress evidence due to lack of probable cause.

In this case arising out of Johnson County, the trial court found that the police officer lacked probable cause to arrest Defendant on the charges of DWI. Any information obtained after the arrest, including the breathalyzer, was deemed to be inadmissible.

Defendant through the trial contested the evidence provided by the officer through cross examination. “Avent cross-examined Corporal Owens, challenging his testimony by inferring bias and partiality, pointing out Corporal Owens selective omission of observations favorable to Avent, and by questioning the evidentiary weight of his observations and the reasonableness of inferences drawn therefrom. Avent obtained admissions by Corporal Owens that his various observations were indicative of the fact alcohol had been consumed but were not indicative of the amount consumed. Avent also elicited an abundance of testimony from Corporal Owens indicative of her not being intoxicated.”

The trial court found on behalf of the Defendant, but made no written findings of fact. The Appellate Court in this situation must assume that the Trial court must have made a judgment as to the credibility of the witnesses in coming to the conclusion regarding lack of probable cause. Therefore, the Trial courts ruling is upheld.

How to avoid a ticket and what to do if you get pulled over

April 23, 2014

Below are tips from the National Motorist Association on how to avoid a ticket an/or what to do if you are pulled over.

1. Don’t draw attention to yourself on the road.

don’t hang out in the left lane
keep pace with traffic
stay within 5 to 10 mph of the posted limit, particularly after dark
don’t exceed a safe driving speed in bad weather conditions (even if you are under the posted limit, you can get a moving violation for driving faster than conditions allow)

2. Be prepared and know your surroundings.

keep your driver’s license, vehicle registration, insurance, and state inspection verification (if required) up to date
be aware of the traffic around you; a slowdown may indicate a speed trap or accident ahead
be vigilant driving through small towns, particularly those near an interstate or where a major state highway goes directly through town
be alert for sudden speed limit reductions, for school zones, and for work zones
plan your trip with SpeedTrap.org and RoadBlock.org

3. Activate your turn signal and find a safe place to pull as far out of the traffic stream as possible before turning off your engine. If you are in an isolated area and are uncertain about the identity of the person(s) who signaled you to stop, turn on your flashers and drive at reduced speed to a well-lit, well-populated area before stopping. Ask to see the officer’s ID before unlocking your door or rolling down your window.

4. Keep your hands visible as the officer approaches.

5. Have your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance readily available.

6. Keep private items (cell phones, mobile radar detectors) out of view but don’t create a flurry of activity while stuffing them into the glove compartment or under your seat. The officer will see that and immediately become suspicious.

7. Try to remain courteous and calm, even though it is a stressful situation. This improves your chances of just getting a warning. Remember though: The officer is not your friend in this situation. Becoming chatty, which many people do under pressure, is not recommended.

8. If you start debating the officer, you almost certainly will get a ticket. Don’t be aggressive, but just as importantly, do not be totally passive or submissive.

9. Do not incriminate yourself, not even a little bit. Every admission is duly recorded and will be used against you.

10. You are not required to answer questions about why you were stopped or how fast you were going, but if you do, be polite and and keep your answers short.

“Do you know why I stopped you?”–“No, I don’t.”(Nothing more or less.)
“Do you know how fast you were going?”–“Is that why you stopped me, officer?” (Curious, not sarcastic, tone.) If the officer persists, simply respond with “Please tell me how fast you think I was going.” Don’t answer “yes” or “yes, within the speed limit;” those responses will trigger repeated questions about your speed or your knowledge of the posted limit.

11. In the case of a DUI stop, any admission–even “I just had one beer” or “one glass of wine”–can be used as an excuse to arrest and test you for sobriety.

12. If the officer asks to search your vehicle, politely refuse unless he can produce a warrant. Never give permission for a search, even if you believe you have nothing to hide.

13. If the officer asks you to perform a field sobriety test, politely refuse. If he insists, do not physically resist but be sure to repeat your refusal of permission, preferably within range of the police car’s dash-cam.

14. After each refusal, ask “Am I free to leave now?”

15. Once a ticket is issued, it is in the system so don’t bother pleading your case roadside.

16. Before leaving the site of the alleged offense, gather information (if you can do so safely) and take some notes that can be valuable for your defense:

pinpoint your specific location (intersection, mile marker, etc.)
write down the license plate number and/or car number of the police vehicle
make sure you have the ticketing officer’s name and the name of any other officer involved with the issuance of your ticket
ask the officer where he/she was located when first observing your vehicle
note the weather, road, and traffic conditions at the time of the stop
take photos of the area including traffic signs that are pertinent to the charges against you

Probable cause to arrest on a DWI is a legal issue when the facts are not contested

April 23, 2014

In Lord vs. The Director of Revenue the trial court in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County found that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest Lord and reinstated her license. This appeal followed. The Appellate Court found that Lord did not dispute the evidence presented by the Director of Revenue, nor did she point out consistencies or question the officer’s credibility.

This made the issue not a factual issue which requires deference to the trial court, but a legal issue which can be determined by the Appellate Court. “The level of proof required to show probable cause is much less than that required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Velluto, 383 S.W.3d at 18. There is no precise test for determining whether probable cause exists. Hinnah v. Dir. of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 616, 621 (Mo. banc 2002). Instead, “[p]robable cause to arrest exists when the arresting officer’s knowledge of the particular facts and circumstances is sufficient to warrant a prudent person’s belief that a suspect has committed an offense.” Id. Whether the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest Lord for driving while intoxicated is therefore “determined by examining the circumstances surrounding the arrest as they appeared to a prudent, cautious, and trained police officer.” Gannon, 411 S.W.3d at 397 (citing Coyle v. Director of Revenue, 88 S.W.3d 887, 893 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002)).”

The Appellate Court determined that the uncontested facts provided enough of a legal basis for probable cause. The case was remanded to St. Louis County on the issue of probable cause. Note the court did not determine if the alcohol content was in excess of .08.

Watch for deer even in the spring

April 14, 2014

Most people watch for deer in the fall during mating season, but the spring is a big time for deer as well.

Excerpted from the National Motorist Association Newsletter #254.

Most deer collisions occur between sundown and midnight, and just before and after dawn, so pay extra attention during these periods.
Use your high beams as much as possible and scan the roadside for any sudden movements.
On a multi-lane road, if you won’t impede traffic, consider moving to the left lane (this is one of the few times you’ll hear us recommend this). This creates a “buffer zone” on each side giving you more time to react should a deer pop out.
Don’t rely on deer whistles. They don’t work.
Deer travel in herds. When one crosses the road, others are likely right behind.
If a collision is inevitable, stomp on the brakes but try to stay in your lane. Swerving increases the risk of colliding with an oncoming vehicle or a roadside obstruction.
Pay attention to deer crossing signs. That’s where the deer cross. And no, you can’t relocate a deer crossing simply by moving the sign, as some suggest.
Motorcyclists are particularly vulnerable in a deer collision. Be safe.

Miranda rights are not applicable in civil refusal cases

April 2, 2014

An Appeal in the Southern District of Missouri arising out of Crawford County deals with the invocation of Miranda rights as it applies to the civil case by the Department of Revenue suspending driving privileges.

In Anyan vs. DOR, SD 32681, the record indicates that the Driver invoked his Miranda rights upon contact with the Officer. The trial court deemed any information obtained after the invocation of the Miranda rights to be inadmissible including Anyan’s refusal to submit to a chemical test. The trial court reinstated Anyan’s driving privileges on this basis.

The Director of Revenue appealed. Under Missouri’s Implied Consent law, drivers are deemed to give consent to a chemical test. A refusal of this test can result in the suspension of driving privileges for one year. A driver has the right to have the revocation reviewed in the Circuit Court of the county of arrest. This case is a civil matter and has the same standard of review as other civil matters.

Miranda does not apply in civil matters. The Miranda rule does not require warnings prior to testing for intoxication. The Appellate Court held that the invocation of Miranda rights was irrelevant to the admissibility of the refusal.

Drug recognition expert not required for probable cause to arrest

March 31, 2014

The recent decision in Hill vs Department of Revune WD 76689, delves into the issue of probable cause to believe a driver is intoxicated or in a drugged condition.

The driver, Hill, was observed by the officer driving erratically. Officer Hotmer stopped Hill. The Officer testified that he noted several indicia of intoxication, but not the smell of alcohol. The Officer requested that Hill submit to a blood test. Further, the Officer requested the assistance of drug recognition expert. Hill admitted to taking Zoloft prior to driving. Hill refused the blood test.

The Department of Revenue suspended his license for one year due to the refusal. Hill brought the matter before the trial court, which affirmed his suspension. Hill then filed this appeal. The basis for his argument is that there was not enough probable cause to believe he was operating a motor vehicle in a drugged or intoxicated state.

“Hill bases his argument on the fact that Officer Hotmer was not trained as an expert in detecting drug impairment and he was unable to secure a DRE to examine Hill.” WD76689.

“Hill fails to cite any authority in support of his conclusory argument that “expert” determination of drug intoxication is an essential requisite to establishing reasonable grounds to believe a driver is intoxicated.4 “An appellant has an obligation to cite appropriate and available precedent if he expects to prevail, and, if no authority is available to cite, he should explain the reason for the absence of citations.” Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145, 148 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007). “When ‘the appellant neither cites relevant authority nor explains why such authority is not available, the appellate court is justified in considering the points abandoned and dismiss[ing] the appeal.'” Id. (citation omitted).” WD76689

” ‘Whether the driver is under the influence of alcohol or any other substance is irrelevant. The relevant inquiry is whether or not the arresting officer had reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person was driving while in either an intoxicated or drugged condition.’ ” (citation omitted) WD76689

” ‘Probable cause exists when a police officer observes illegal operation of a motor vehicle and indicia of intoxication upon contacting the motorist.’ “(citation omitted). WD76689

“Further, Officer Hotmer testified on cross-examination that he requested the help of a DRE after he arrested Hill. Plainly, it is of no consequence that Officer Hotmer sought the assistance of a DRE after he arrested Hill. ‘Whether there is probable cause to arrest depends on the information in the officers’ possession prior to the arrest.’” (citation omitted) WD76689.

The appellate court affirmed the suspension of Hills license.

Calverton Park Municipal Court

March 5, 2014

Calverton Park Traffic Lawyers

St. Louis County – 21st Judicial Circuit
The Calverton Park Traffic Lawyers at PulledOver.com can handle it,

Calverton Park Speeding Ticket Defense

Our Calverton Park traffic lawyers handle Calverton Park speeding ticket defense, where “no points” is the goal.

Calverton Park MIP Defense

Our Calverton Park MIP lawyers handle Minor in Possession defense, where the object is keeping your record clean and your driver license from being suspended or revoked.

Calverton Park DWI Defense

Our Calverton Park DWI attorneys handle drunk driving defense, where your driver license and your freedom are at stake.

Let our Calverton Park Traffic Lawyers start helping you today. Contact Us

Calverton Park Traffic Court Information

This page contains Court information Links for Calverton Park, Missouri.

Calverton Park Municipal Court

Gerald Durfee, Court Clerk

52 Young Drive
St. Louis, MO 63135
(314) 524-1212 x12
(314) 524-2012 (facsimile)
www.calvertonparkmo.com

Judge
Hon. Philip Ayers

Hours
The Violations Bureau is open for payments from 9:00am to 1:00pm.

In 2012, the Municipality of Calverton Park filed over 3,400 tickets. Did you get a ticket in the municipality of Calverton Park? What should you do?

If you received a moving violation you have 3 options:

Pay it
Go to court and try to fight it yourself
Hire an attorney.

If you hire an attorney, you will likely avoid the appearance and our goal is to get your moving violation amended to a non-moving violation. We have worked in the Calverton Park Municipal Court for over 10 years. We work with the prosecuting attorney to get your ticket reduced. We then notify you via email and hard copy and all you have to do is mail in your payment. Usually this process requires no appearance in court on your part saving you time and energy. For a free consultation, fill out our easy ticket submission form and one of our attorneys will contact you

Even with nothing to hide, driver’s shouldn’t be subjected to invasive searches

March 3, 2014

NMA E-Newsletter #255: Dangerous Business

By John Bowman, NMA Communications Director

“It’s a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don’t keep your feet, there’s no knowing where you might be swept off to.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings (Part 1: The Fellowship of the Ring)

I love this quote, and I think it has as much meaning in our world today as it did back in Middle Earth. As I read the news these days, I’m constantly reminded of how dangerous it is to leave your house, hop into your car and drive to your destination. Dangerous not only to your health, your civil rights and your pocket book, but to your basic human dignity as well.

The first story that got me thinking about all of this involves New Mexico driver David Eckert, who was stopped by police for what he thought was a routine traffic violation. It turned out to be anything but routine. When Eckert stepped out of his vehicle, a police officer became suspicious because he noticed Eckert appeared to be clenching his buttocks, a sure sign he was concealing drugs. Officers obtained a search warrant and transported Eckert to a nearby medical center.

Over the next 14 hours, Eckert was subjected to involuntary X-rays, multiple anal exams, three enemas and ultimately a colonoscopy in which he received anesthesia—all against his will. No drugs were found, but the hospital did bill Eckert for all of the degrading procedures he had to endure.

He has since filed a federal lawsuit against multiple parties, including officers who the lawsuit says were involved in the stop. Some may dismiss this as an isolated incident. It makes no difference. Besides, it may not be an isolated incident as two other New Mexico drivers have come forward with similar disturbing stories.

Police assert that Eckert had concealed drugs in this way previously, although no official record corroborating this claim can be found. Eckert’s attorney acknowledges her client’s past history with drugs but says this does not justify the treatment he received. Nothing can.

The second story that got me worked up happened in Fort Worth, Texas. Random drivers along a busy street were diverted into a parking lot and asked to submit to “voluntary” breath tests and to provide cheek swabs and blood samples. Drivers were offered $10 for a cheek swab and $50 for a blood sample.

This so-called study on the prevalence of impaired driving was conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) using a third party research firm as well as off-duty Fort Worth police officers. While officials claimed participation was “100 percent voluntary,” drivers reported that they felt “trapped” and had no choice but to pull in and submit to these searches.

Drivers were told they would not be forced to give any samples, but the fine print of the consent form disclosed that their breath was tested by “passive alcohol sensor readings before the consent process has been completed.”

The sad part of all of this, aside from the trapping and tricking of innocent motorists, is that there are no reports of drivers opting out. The roadblock was designed to make participation appear compulsory, even though it wasn’t. Again, this is not an isolated case. Similar roadblocks occurred in Alabama during summer, and NHTSA is conducting such trials in 30 cities around the country, although we can find no mention of what those cities are.

Make no mistake, the purpose of this “study” is to gauge public acceptance of increasingly intrusive DUI screening of drivers. A compliant public will only hasten the widespread adoption of such measures. To fight back, citizens must know and assert their constitutional rights. The simple question “am I being detained” repeated often enough during one of these roadblocks could protect an innocent driver from “dangerous business,” to borrow from Tolkien.

The hackneyed response to these concerns is always, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, so what’s the big deal?” That’s the wrong question, posed by those who seek to justify ever greater control over our lives. David Eckert quite literally had nothing to hide, and look what happened to him.

The real question is what kind of society do we want to live in? One that can trap and trick us, or subject us to the most inhumane treatment imaginable? Or one in which we can step onto the road without the fear of being swept off.

Supreme Court declines to hear red light camera appeals

February 26, 2014

The Supreme Court of Missouri has declined to review the red-light camera appeals from Kansas City, Creve Coeur and Florissant. These requests had been filed by the cities and American Traffic Solutions, Inc the provider of the cameras.

The Appellate Courts had issued concerns that the ordinances conflicted with state law requiring the issuance of points for moving violations. The cases will be remanded back where the cities can attempt to provide justification for the ordinances.

The Supreme Court has not addressed the recent Ellisville, Arnold or City of St. Louis rulings regarding traffic cameras.