Tag Archives: Missouri traffic law

Appellate Decision goes to State in DWI conviction case

Here is a win for the State/Law Enforcement against a DWI defendant.  The defendant admitted to law enforcement officers that he was intoxicated when he was arrested and that he was driving his truck at the time of the accident.  The police had pulled up to the scene of the accident.  When they got there, they observed that the defendant was intoxicated.

The officer smelled a “faint” odor of alcohol on his breath, and noticed that his eyes were bloodshot. Based on those observations, the officer believed

Defendant was intoxicated. Defendant declined medical treatment at the scene.

Defendant told the officer that he was traveling northbound on North

Eastern Avenue when the passenger side wheels of his truck went off the side of the

road. He said that he overcorrected and crossed over the center line, went off the

opposite side of the road, and then caught an embankment, which caused the truck

to flip. The truck rolled several times before it came to rest on its roof next to the

road.

A second officer came to the scene and began a DWI investigation.  Officer detected a “strong odor” of alcohol coming from Defendant. He also observed

Rastorfer’s eyes to be “watery and glassy,” and his balance “swaying and uncertain.”

Defendant stated that he had last consumed an alcoholic beverage 30

minutes earlier.

Officer performed two field sobriety tests: a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, and the walk-and-turn test. He detected three out of six possible clues of intoxication on the HGN test. Officer testified that the presence of four clues on the HGN test generally indicates intoxication; but he explained that he was unable to complete the HGN test, and did not score Defendant’s right eye, because Defendant “wouldn’t follow my proper instructions” by visually following the stimulus. Officer then detected four out of eight possible clues of impairment on the walk-and-turn test, and testified that two clues indicated intoxication. When Officer attempted to perform the one-leg stand test,

Defendant refused to comply. Following his investigation, Defendant was arrested

for driving while intoxicated.

To sustain a conviction for driving while intoxicated, the State must establish a

temporal connection between the defendant’s last operation of a motor vehicle and

his observed intoxication. The Defendant’s argument was that the State’s evidence was insufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was intoxicated while driving.

In this case, the Appellate Court looked at the following facts to affirm the trial court’s conviction for DWI:

That Defendant claimed he last consumed alcohol at 10:00 p.m. and that he said he had been in Grain Valley, more than thirty miles away, in the three hours preceding the

accident, it was a reasonable inference that Defendant had finished drinking well

before the accident occurred. The evidence also indicated that the accident had

occurred only shortly before officers encountered Defendant which supported the

inference that his observed intoxication preceded the accident. The nature of the

accident – a single vehicle rollover without obvious explanation in clear weather, on

a straight, dry and paved road – also supports the inference that the cause of the

accident was intoxication-related. Defendant’s refusal to submit to blood alcohol

testing also supports an inference of his intoxication while driving. The fact that

the State’s evidence did not wholly foreclose the possibility that Defendant became

intoxicated following the accident does not require reversal of the trial court.

The case was State v. Rastorfer, Court of Appeals, Western District of Missouri.

Court says: No Hearing, No Denial of Probation

The Missouri appellate court in the Western District issued an opinion stating that a circuit court has authority after sentencing only as provided by statute. In this case, it said that to deny statutes governing a 120-day shock incarceration program by not listening to the Department of Corrections’ recommendation for probation, the circuit court must first hold a hearing within a certain time period. If the circuit court fails to do so, the defendant must be released on probation.

This case is about a defendant who was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated in the Circuit Court of Livingston County.  The defendant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. He was ordered to participate in a 120-day institutional treatment program pursuant to § 559.115.3. When the court recommends and receives placement of an offender in a department of corrections 120-day program, the offender shall be released on probation if the Department of Corrections determines that the offender has successfully completed the program.

However, when the Department of Corrections reported to the circuit court that the defendant would successfully complete the 120-day program and recommended release on probation, the court denied him release without a hearing

The defendant filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the appellate court, contending that the circuit court lacked authority to deny him probation, since it failed to hold a hearing on the matter within 120 days of defendant’s delivery to the Department of Corrections. Even if the 120 day deadline coincides with date of completion of the program there still needs to be a hearing. “An offender cannot be stripped of his right to a hearing on his probation determination simply because he completed the program within the time limits but on the last day of such time limits.”

The appellate court issued a writ in Mandamus, holding that (1) The circuit court lacked authority to deny the defendant probation without first holding a hearing on the matter. And,

(2) Because the court failed to hold a hearing on the matter within 120 days of defendant’s

delivery to the Department of Corrections, the court has exhausted its authority.

So a permanent writ in mandamus was issued directing the circuit court to rescind its order denying the defendant release on probation, and to enter an order releasing him on probation on appropriate conditions.

New St. Louis Prosecutor makes changes in policy

St. Louis County Prosecutor Wesley Bell took office at the beginning of the year. The County will no longer prosecute marijuana possession cases of fewer than 100 grams. Prosecution of more than 100 grams will be pursued only if evidence suggests the sale or distribution of marijuana. In comparison, the City of St. Louis announced in June that possession of fewer than 100 grams would not be prosecuted unless there are aggravating circumstances.

The County will no longer prosecute people who fail to pay child support.  However, current cases will not be dropped. Those cases will be placed on hold. The idea is to not revoke probation purely upon the failure to pay child support. Similarly, the County will not press charges against those who do not pay restitution unless there is a court order that establishes a person’s “willful nonpayment” of child support. 

The County will no longer be requesting cash bail on misdemeanor cases. And instead of warrants for Class D and E felony cases, the County will now issue a summons. 

The County also will not seek to “overcharge” defendants “to pressure the accused to admit guilt.” Prosecutors are barred from adding more counts to increase the range of punishment or threatening to route cases back to a grand jury if a defendant has exercised his or her pretrial constitutional rights.

We shall soon start to see what the impact will be, positive or negative, upon the people in the St. Louis County region. 

MO Supreme Court hears case challenging DWI conviction

An interesting case was just heard before the Missouri Supreme Court that challenges a defendant’s drunk driving conviction.

The defendant’s attorneys argued before the seven judge panel that his breathalyzer results should not be admitted and that certain notices send out when a driver’s license is suspended are actually a violation of due process.

The defendant was arrested for suspicion of driving while intoxicated.  While at the police station, an officer asked him to submit to a breath test. The defendant initially declined.  Then he was told his license would be automatically revoked for one year for refusing the test. He also spoke to his attorney.  He then consented to the test, which showed his blood alcohol content was 0.087, which exceeded the legal limit. The officer gave him a notice of suspension and took his driving license.

The defendant asked for an administrative hearing, which ended up upholding his suspension.

His argument against the admissibility of the breath test and his claim of being denied due process was then rejected by the circuit court in Franklin County in March 2018.

The defendant argues that his breath test should be inadmissible for these reasons:

1) The police failed to file a report on a maintenance check of the breath analyzer used in his breath test with the Department of Health and Senior Services within 15 days as required.

2) Missouri’s Implied Consent Warning issued to him by an officer before the breath test is a violation of due process because it specified consequences if he declined to take the test but failed to inform him of the consequences if he submitted to it.

Few people but for law enforcement and lawyers know that drivers who decline the test have their licenses immediately revoked for a year.  However, few, if any, drivers understand the consequences of a refusal if the driver does not understand the consequences of submitting to the test.

3) And, that he was misled when the officer issued him a Notice of because it only states that the driving privilege is being suspended due to an arrest on probable cause for driving while intoxicated.  The defendant says the notice fails to inform about the other requirements for a suspension that include that the driver actually had a blood alcohol content of greater than 0.08 and was actually driving.

It will be interesting to see if these arguments can stick, and get the defendant’s conviction reversed and the case sent back to the trial court. We should know soon when the Supreme court rules.  Keep it posted here and we will let you know how it turns out. fffffffffffffff

MO law expands drug treatment court to more of the state

A bill that expands the reach of drug treatment courts in the state of Missouri recently was passed in the State General Assembly. Now those who suffer from substance abuse will have more options.

The bill was passed by the lawmakers and signed by the governor. It consolidates Missouri’s treatment courts – adult treatment court, DWI court, family treatment court, juvenile treatment court, and veterans treatment court. It also updates state statute to reflect the reality of the treatment court system today.

One important part of the bill is that it expands treatment courts to counties that don’t have them because of the cost to operate them. Now, a person in a county that does not have treatment court can be transferred to a court that offers treatment court as long as all parties agree to the transfer. The bill also sets standards of best practices for treatment courts throughout the state.

Advocates of the program emphasize that this is not a “get out of jail free card” program. The treatment program generally takes two years and requirements participants to meet plenty of requirements, such as obtaining employment or completing an education, staying clean with frequent random drug testing, and attending treatment meetings.

The governor also signed legislation that helps encourage students to pursue career paths in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Another bill also passed sets out to bring more awareness to domestic violence, and will allow victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, rape, human trafficking or stalking to better keep their personal addresses confidential from the public’s access. The state’s office will provide a designated substitute address for survivors to use when creating new public records, as well as the option to securely forward mail to their confidential addresses. The hope is that this will keep survivors’ confidential addresses out of the hands of their assailants.

All in all, the recent General Assembly passed several helpful laws that will help those in need.

Warson Woods Municipal Court

Warson Woods Municipal Court Traffic Attorneys
Warson Woods, MO Traffic Court
Warson Woods Traffic Lawyers

Did you get a ticket in Warson Woods, Missouri?
Warson Woods issued 171 tickets in 2017.
Stop Sign, Electric Signal Violation, Driving While Suspended, Possession of Marijuana, or any other ticket, our Warson Woods traffic lawyers can handle it where “no points” is the goal.
Warson Woods Speeding Ticket Traffic Law Defense
Did you receive a Speeding ticket in Warson Woods?

This page contains Court information and links for Warson Woods, Missouri.

Warson Woods Municipal Court
424 N. Sappington Rd
Warson Woods, MO 63122

Phone: 314-906-3003
Fax: 314-965-2912

City of Warson Woods, MO website. Check the website to find a list of fines.

Presiding Judge
Hon. John P. Lord, III

Court Administrator
Cassy Kollmeyer

Prosecuting Attorney
Joseph D. McAuliffe

Court Hours
Monday-Thursday
7:00am – 3:00pm

Court is held every other month on the first Wednesday of each month at 7:00pm.

Payments can be made online at www.ipaycourt.com/warsonwoods

Des Peres Municipal Court

Des Peres Municipal Court Traffic Attorneys
Des Peres, MO Traffic Court
Des Peres Traffic Lawyers

Did you get a ticket in Des Peres, Missouri?

Des Peres issued 614 tickets in 2017.
Stop Sign, Electric Signal Violation, Driving While Suspended, Possession of Marijuana, or any other ticket, our Des Peres traffic lawyers can handle it where “no points” is the goal.
Des Peres Speeding Ticket Traffic Law Defense

This page contains Court information and links for Des Peres, Missouri.

Des Peres Municipal Court
12325 Manchester Rd
Des Peres, MO 63131

Phone: 314-835-6119

City of Des Peres, MO website. Check the website to find a list of fines.

Presiding Judge
Charles H. Billings

Court Administrator
Amie Clemonds

Court Hours
Monday-Friday
8:00am – 4:00pm

Dardenne Prairie Municipal Court

Dardenne Prairie Municipal Court Traffic Attorneys
Dardenne Prairie, MO Traffic Court
Dardenne Prairie Traffic Lawyers

Did you get a ticket in Dardenne Prairie, Missouri?

Dardenne Prairie issued 1478 tickets in 2017.
Stop Sign, Electric Signal Violation, Driving While Suspended, Possession of Marijuana, or any other ticket, our Dardenne Prairie traffic lawyers can handle it where “no points” is the goal.
Dardenne Prairie Speeding Ticket Traffic Law Defense
Did you receive a Speeding ticket in Dardenne Prairie?

This page contains Court information and links for Dardenne Prairie, Missouri.

Dardenne Prairie Municipal Court
2032 Hanley Rd
Dardenne Prairie, MO 63368

Phone: 636-755-5333
Fax: 636-625-0077

City of Dardenne Prairie, MO website. Check the website to find a list of fines.

Presiding Judge
Dennis Chassoniol II

Prosecuting Attorney
Jeff Sandcork

Court Administrator
Tammie Smith

PA Assistant
Carmen Breckenridge

Court Hours
Monday-Friday
8:00am – 5:00pm

Berkeley Municipal Court

Berkeley Municipal Court Traffic Attorneys
Berkeley, MO Traffic Court
Berkeley Traffic Lawyers

Did you get a ticket in Berkeley, Missouri?

Stop Sign, Electric Signal Violation, Driving While Suspended, Possession of Marijuana, or any other ticket, our Berkeley traffic lawyers can handle it where “no points” is the goal.
Berkeley Speeding Ticket Traffic Law Defense
The Berkeley Municipal Court issued 1485 tickets in 2017. Did you receive a Speeding ticket in Berkeley?

This page contains Court information and links for Berkeley, Missouri.

Berkeley Municipal Court
8425 Airport Rd.
Berkeley, MO 134

Phone: 314-400-3700
Fax: 314-264-2075

City of Berkeley, MO website. Check the website to find a list of fines.

Presiding Judge
Hon. Jennifer Fisher

Court Administrator
April Walton

Court Hours
Monday-Friday
8:30am – 5:00pm

Driving, texting, under 21 do not mix in MO

Driving while drinking alcohol isn’t the only thing that can get you in trouble for being a driver under the age 21. The other activity that can get you is what you probably do more than a dozen times a day – texting.

The Missouri law, RSMo. Sec. 304.820, deals with texting while driving. Sorry guys, but the use of a hand-held electronic wireless communications device, whether sending, reading, or writing a text message or electronic message is against the law and will get you a ticket if you are caught and under age 21. And this ticket will be considered a moving violation, therefore, there will be points on your driver’s license if you don’t get an attorney to amend the ticket to a non-moving violation.

However, there are exceptions. The provisions of subsection 1 through subsection 3 of this section shall not apply to a person operating:
(1) An authorized emergency vehicle; or
(2) A moving motor vehicle while using a hand-held electronic wireless communications device to: (a) Report illegal activity; (b) Summon medical or other emergency help; (c) Prevent injury to a person or property; or (d) Relay information between a transit or for-hire operator and that operator’s dispatcher, in which the device is permanently affixed to the vehicle.

When it comes to commercial vehicles, the law is even tougher. Not only those under 21, but all drivers are not allowed to operate a commercial motor vehicle while using a hand-held mobile telephone, especially to when it comes to sending, reading, or writing a text message or electronic message.

However, there are always exceptions. This prohibition shall not apply to a person operating:
(1) An authorized emergency vehicle; or
(2) A moving motor vehicle while using a hand-held electronic wireless communications device to: (a) Report illegal activity; (b) Summon medical or other emergency help; (c) Prevent injury to a person or property; or (d) Relay information between a transit or for-hire operator and that operator’s dispatcher, in which the device is permanently affixed to the vehicle.

Just to be clear, the statute states under paragraph (5) that nothing in this section shall be construed or interpreted as prohibiting a person from making or taking part in a telephone call, by means of a hand-held electronic wireless communications device, while operating a noncommercial motor vehicle upon the highways of this state.

Now, the provisions of this section shall not apply to the following:
(1) The operator of a vehicle that is lawfully parked or stopped;
(2) Any of the following while in the performance of their official duties: a law enforcement officer; a member of a fire department; or the operator of a public or private ambulance;
(3) The use of factory-installed or aftermarket global positioning systems (GPS) or wireless communications devices used to transmit or receive data as part of a digital dispatch system;
(4) The use of voice-operated technology;
(5) The use of two-way radio transmitters or receivers by a licensee of the Federal Communications Commission in the Amateur Radio Service.