Tag Archives: Traffic Attorneys

Missouri given “F” grade for driving safety

November 27, 2017

Have you heard Missouri is considered one of the worst states for road safety? That’s according to a recent report from the National Safety Commission.

Missouri received a grade of an “F” for road safety, which was one of nine states to receive the lowest grade. Overall the state was ranked 49th. The grades were based on each state’s statistics related to failure to wear seatbelts, distracted driving incidents, speeding tickets, and alcohol-impaired driving (DWI’s).

Partly resulting in such a low grade is Missouri’s seatbelt and texting laws. In Missouri, a driver cannot be pulled over just for not wearing a seatbelt. There must be a secondary offense observed, such as speeding, following too close, erratic driving, invalid license, etc. Therefore, many drivers are not buckled up and pay the price in injuries or even death. As to texting, only drivers under age 21 and commercial drivers can be ticketed for texting and driving. Those 21 and over will not be ticketed. This has led to many accidents among the 21 year and older group.

November and December months are considered the most dangerous driving months because of the increased number of deaths usually recorded. You can expect the state highway patrol to have extra law enforcement out on the roads during these months. Remember to buckle up, use designated drivers or ride services if drinking, and to drive safely this holiday season.

Missouri task force looks to strengthen driving safety laws

November 22, 2017

Safety was the key word in discussions at a recent task force meeting in Jefferson City, Mo., that discussed Missouri’s transportation system.

The task force, named Missouri’s 21st Century Transportation System task force, is charged with reviewing the funding of the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT).

Between 1999-2016, MoDOT installed 800 miles of guard cable on Missouri interstates. According to MoDOT representatives, the guard cable has saved more than 500 lives. The cost of the safety cables, approximately $125,000 per mile. And another $10,000 per mile is needed to maintain annually.

Missouri has the seventh-largest state highway system, with 33,884 miles of roadway.

MoDOT says fatality crashes increased nine percent in 2016. Hood testifies 950 people died in Missouri traffic crashes in 2016.

Deaths continue to occur as motorists continue to drive without buckling up, driving intoxicated, texting while driving, and speeding. Sometimes deaths result because all of these factors. Deaths from traffic crashes increased nine percent in 2016, with 950 deaths in 2016 alone.

There are 16 states, including Missouri, without a primary seat belt law. Considering that Missouri is 50th ranked in a safety report by the National Safety Council (NSC).

This fact has MoDOT out front pushing state lawmakers to approve a primary seatbelt law. Already 53 municipalities have passed their own primary seat belt laws.

Some of the suggestions for increased driving safety have been strengthening laws for child passengers, no-texting laws, seatbelt laws, and the use of red-light traffic cameras.

MoDOT has come out to describe distracted driving that includes texting to be an epidemic, with nearly 40,000 deaths a year across the nation. MoDOT bans its drivers from driving and texting, and some 250 companies across the state are committing to ban its employees from texting and driving while on duty. Recommendations from the task force are expected by the first of next year.

With Missouri being the 47th lowest in fuel taxes in the nation, the task force is looking to fund the increased safety measures with a potential fuel tax increase. Strong opposition is expected to block any fuel tax increase.

Missouri DWI laws and treatment courts

November 21, 2017

Ever wonder about the underlying mechanics of how Missouri’s DWI laws have been put together? For the answer to that question, you need to look at House Bill 1695 that went into effect August 28, 2010.

The bill changed the laws for repeat alcohol offenders and drivers with high blood-alcohol levels. It also affected how a person qualifies for driving privileges. Other changes included the following:

• Creation of a centralized reporting database that tracks all driving-while-impaired offenses, from arrest to disposition.

• Prevents municipal courts from hearing an intoxication-related case if the offender has two or more “intoxicated-related” offenses, or two or more “alcohol-related” offenses.

• DWI courts were established to facilitate treatment for repeat offenders and drivers with high blood-alcohol levels.

• Establishes criteria for qualifying participants and graduates of a DWI court program to obtain a court-ordered limited driving privilege.

• Prohibits a first alcohol-related driving offense from being expunged from a person’s record if the person has another alcohol-related contact on record, or another alcohol-related action pending.

For more information, here is the link to the Department of Revenue to find out more: http://dor.mo.gov/faq/drivers/dwi.php. The DOR website offers a Q&A section that answers many questions you may have. Here are a few:

Can a DWI Court grant me a limited driving privilege when I participate in or graduate from its program, if I have more than one alcohol-related traffic offense on my record?
Yes. Section 302.309.3(9) now allows a DWI Court to grant a limited driving privilege to a participant or graduate of the program who may otherwise be ineligible for limited driving privilege. If you are granted a limited driving privilege by the DWI Court, the Department of Revenue will update your driving record to show the limited driving privilege.

I’ve heard that if my case is in a DWI Court, and I plead guilty to or am found guilty of a first-time driving while intoxicated offense, and my blood alcohol concentration is .15%, I would not be eligible for a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) for the alcohol-related traffic offense. Is this true?
No. In a county in which there is a DWI court, you may receive an SIS so long as:
•You are placed on probation for a minimum of two years; and
•You successfully complete the DWI court or court-ordered treatment program.
What will the DWI Court program consist of? The program will combine judicial supervision, drug testing, continuous alcohol monitoring, substance abuse traffic offender program compliance, and treatment.

Is there a fee to participate in a DWI court program? A DWI Court may assess you with any and all necessary costs of your participation.

When is the earliest I can be issued a limited driving privilege if I am a participant in or graduate of the program? You must complete a minimum of 45 days of participation in the program and be approved by the DWI Court.

Am I required to have an SR-22 insurance filing if a DWI Court has issued me a limited driving privilege?
Yes. You are required to maintain an SR-22 insurance filing for the duration of your limited driving privilege.

Am I required to have an ignition interlock device in my car if a DWI Court has issued me a limited driving privilege? Yes, if you have more than one alcohol-related enforcement contact.

If I have a first alcohol-related driving offense on my record that is over 10 years old and now I have a new one pending in court, can I have the old alcohol-related offense expunged from my record? No. The new law prohibits the Department of Revenue from expunging the alcohol-related driving offense from your record because you have another alcohol-related offense pending.

The law balancing safety v. excessive regulation-punishment

November 3, 2017

Ever wonder where cities get their authority to implement traffic laws? In Missouri, the state legislature has passed multiple statutes related to traffic. One statute, 304.010, sets out maximum speed limits and penalties, and grants authority to cities to set those limits.

One provision, states that cities, towns and villages may regulate the speed of vehicles on state roads and highways within their cities’, towns’ or villages’ corporate limits. To do so, they must pass an ordinance with the approval of the state highways and transportation commission.

The statute says that if there is any reduction of speed in these cities, towns or villages, they must be designed to expedite the flow of traffic on state roads or highways to be consistent with public safety. That basically means the commission can declare any cities’ ordinance void if it finds that such ordinance is not designed to expedite traffic flow, and it was primarily designed to produce revenue for the city that enacted the ordinance.

The bottom line, thankfully, is that cities do have statewide oversight when it comes to regulating traffic within their boundaries. This helps us find that balance between public safety versus excessive regulations and punishment.

The statute is below if you want to learn more:

304.010. Definitions — maximum speed limits — cities, towns, villages, certain counties, may set speed limit, how set — slower speeds set, when — violations, penalty. — 1. As used in this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “Expressway”, a divided highway of at least ten miles in length with four or more lanes which is not part of the federal interstate system of highways which has crossovers or accesses from streets, roads or other highways at the same grade level as such divided highway;
(2) “Freeway”, a limited access divided highway of at least ten miles in length with four or more lanes which is not part of the federal interstate system of highways which does not have any crossovers or accesses from streets, roads or other highways at the same grade level as such divided highway within such ten miles of divided highway;
(3) “Rural interstate”, that part of the federal interstate highway system that is not located in an urban area;
(4) “Urbanized area”, an area of fifty thousand population at a density at or greater than one thousand persons per square mile.
2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the uniform maximum speed limits are and no vehicle shall be operated in excess of the speed limits established pursuant to this section:

(1) Upon the rural interstates and freeways of this state, seventy miles per hour;
(2) Upon the rural expressways of this state, sixty-five miles per hour;
(3) Upon the interstate highways, freeways or expressways within the urbanized areas of this state, sixty miles per hour;
(4) All other roads and highways in this state not located in an urbanized area and not provided for in subdivisions (1) to (3) of this subsection, sixty miles per hour;
(5) All other roads provided for in subdivision (4) of this subsection shall not include any state two-lane road which is identified by letter. Such lettered roads shall not exceed fifty-five miles per hour unless set at a higher speed as established by the department of transportation, except that no speed limit shall be set higher than sixty miles per hour;
(6) For the purposes of enforcing the speed limit laws of this state, it is a rebuttable presumption that the posted speed limit is the legal speed limit.

3. On any state road or highway where the speed limit is not set pursuant to a local ordinance, the highways and transportation commission may set a speed limit higher or lower than the uniform maximum speed limit provided in subsection 2 of this section, if a higher or lower speed limit is recommended by the department of transportation. The department of public safety, where it believes for safety reasons, or to expedite the flow of traffic a higher or lower speed limit is warranted, may request the department of transportation to raise or lower such speed limit, except that no speed limit shall be set higher than seventy miles per hour.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 304.120 or any other provision of law to the contrary, cities, towns and villages may regulate the speed of vehicles on state roads and highways within such cities’, towns’ or villages’ corporate limits by ordinance with the approval of the state highways and transportation commission. Any reduction of speed in cities, towns or villages shall be designed to expedite the flow of traffic on such state roads and highways to the extent consistent with public safety. The commission may declare any ordinance void if it finds that such ordinance is:
(1) Not primarily designed to expedite traffic flow; and
(2) Primarily designed to produce revenue for the city, town or village which enacted such ordinance.
If an ordinance is declared void, the city, town or village shall have any future proposed ordinance approved by the highways and transportation commission before such ordinance may take effect.
5. The county commission of any county of the second, third or fourth classification may set the speed limit or the weight limit or both the speed limit and the weight limit on roads or bridges on any county, township or road district road in the county and, with the approval of the state highways and transportation commission, on any state road or highway not within the limits of any incorporated city, town or village, lower than the uniform maximum speed limit as provided in subsection 2 of this section where the condition of the road or the nature of the area requires a lower speed. The maximum speed limit set by the county commission of any county of the second, third, or fourth classification for any road under the commission’s jurisdiction shall not exceed fifty-five miles per hour if such road is properly marked by signs indicating such speed limit. If the county commission does not mark the roads with signs indicating the speed limit, the speed limit shall be fifty miles per hour. The commission shall send copies of any order establishing a speed limit or weight limit on roads and bridges on a county, township or road district road in the county to the chief engineer of the state department of transportation, the superintendent of the state highway patrol and to any township or road district maintaining roads in the county. After the roads have been properly marked by signs indicating the speed limits and weight limits set by the county commission, the speed limits and weight limits shall be of the same effect as the speed limits provided for in subsection 1 of this section and shall be enforced by the state highway patrol and the county sheriff as if such speed limits and weight limits were established by state law.
6. The county commission of any county of the second, third, or fourth classification may by ordinance set a countywide speed limit on roads within unincorporated areas of any county, township, or road district in the county and may establish reasonable speed regulations for motor vehicles within the limit of such county. No person who is not a resident of such county and who has not been within the limits thereof for a continuous period of more than forty-eight hours shall be convicted of a violation of such ordinances, unless it is shown by competent evidence that there was posted at the place where the boundary of such county road enters the county a sign displaying in black letters not less than four inches high and one inch wide on a white background the speed fixed by such county so that such signs may be clearly seen by operators and drivers from their vehicles upon entering such county. The commission shall send copies of any order establishing a countywide speed limit on a county, township, or road district road in the county to the chief engineer of the Missouri department of transportation, the superintendent of the state highway patrol, and to any township or road district maintaining roads in the county. After the boundaries of the county roads entering the county have been properly marked by signs indicating the speed limits set by the county commission, the speed limits shall be of the same effect as the speed limits provided for in subsection 1 of this section and shall be enforced by the state highway patrol and the county sheriff as if such speed limits were established by state law.
7. All road signs indicating speed limits or weight limits shall be uniform in size, shape, lettering and coloring and shall conform to standards established by the department of transportation.
8. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to alter any speed limit set below fifty-five miles per hour by any ordinance of any county, city, town or village of the state adopted before March 13, 1996.
9. The speed limits established pursuant to this section shall not apply to the operation of any emergency vehicle as defined in section 304.022.
10. A violation of the provisions of this section shall not be construed to relieve the parties in any civil action on any claim or counterclaim from the burden of proving negligence or contributory negligence as the proximate cause of any accident or as the defense to a negligence action.
11. Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a class C misdemeanor, unless such person was exceeding the posted speed limit by twenty miles per hour or more then it is a class B misdemeanor.

 

Columbia bill makes texting and driving an offense for all ages

October 18, 2017

The City of Columbia, Missouri, is considering passing a bill that will ban texting while driving for drivers of all ages.

Currently, there is a statewide rule that prohibits texting for drivers 21 years old and younger. If passed, the ordinance would make Columbia one of the few Missouri towns that bans texting for all ages.

However, the legal grounds to pass such a regulation is questionable. 

Supporters of the bill argue that they will have different approach for violators 22 years and older. Columbia police will be directed to issue tickets to the older adults only after another primary traffic offense has happened. The current state law for 21 and younger makes driving while texting a primary offense that police can pull the younger drivers over. The law prohibits the use of a cell phone to “send, read or write a text message or electronic message.” The older drivers must first commit another violation before they get a citation.

The law, however, is different for commercial motor vehicle driving. Those drivers are prohibited to use hand-held cell phones to text or make a call.

The consensus among the legal community is unclear whether municipals have the power to pass more restrictive laws on texting. In St. Louis County, the City of Kirkwood has adopted a more stringent ordinance but most other cities have not because attorneys disagree about the issue.

The Columbia ban was a recommendation from a 2016 Mayor’s Task Force on Pedestrian Safety.

Distracted driving, which includes texting while driving, is a common reason for deadly or injurious traffic crashes in Columbia.

According to the Missouri State Highway Patrol, since the start of 2017, there were 125 vehicle crashes in related to distracted driving, a category that includes driving and texting.  Of those, 24 of the crashes involved injuries, with five injuries disabling.

Foundation requirements for prior convictions in DWI

September 4, 2017

A recent Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District opinion shows the importance of prosecutors laying a proper evidentiary foundation to introduce evidence of prior convictions in driving while intoxicated cases.

 

In the case of State v. Gary Lee Pylypczuk, following a jury trial in the circuit court of Clay County, Mr. Pylypczuk appealed his conviction of driving while intoxicated.  The DWI was in violation of § 577.010. Pylypczuk argued that the circuit court improperly admitted evidence of his status as a persistent intoxication-related traffic offender because the evidence was not properly authenticated.

 

The court reversed the sentence imposed by the Court and remanded the case for jury sentencing.

 

In its holding, the Appellate Court stated that Section 577.023 does not allow records from the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System’s Driving While Intoxicated Tracking System (DWITS) to be admitted to prove a prior conviction in the absence of any foundation.

 

The Appellate Court went on to hold that the State failed to lay an adequate foundation to support admission of evidence of Pylypczuk’s prior convictions, and that without evidence of prior convictions, Pylypczuk could not be sentenced as a persistent intoxication-related traffic offender.

 

The Appellate Court stated in its opinion: “Because Exhibit 2 lacked adequate authentication, it was not admissible and the circuit court erred in admitting it. Furthermore, because Exhibit 2 was used to establish one of the two convictions rendering Pylypczuk a persistent offender, he was prejudiced by the erroneous admission. We, therefore, reverse the finding of the circuit court that Pylypczuk is a persistent offender and the resulting sentence and remand for jury sentencing as a class B misdemeanor offender.”

 

The Special Division Judges were Zel M. Fischer, Special Judge, Presiding, and Karen King

Mitchell and Cynthia L. Martin. Judge King Mitchell wrote the opinion.

Zipper merging = the safer way

June 27, 2017

The next time you drive up to a road construction site transportation experts want you to think “Zipper.”  So instead of merging into a single lane early as possible, experts state that it is better to drive to the end of the lane that has to merge and proceed to take turns merging in a zipper-like fashion.

The problem typically occurs when most drivers see the first “lane closed ahead” sign in a work zone and they immediately slow down and attempt to merge into the lane that will continue through the construction area. People assume that if they don’t merge early they no-one will allow them to merge later, or that it is impolite to pass up the line to merge closer to the work zone.  And sometimes driver’s will react angrily that another car has passed them up after they had been waiting in line first and for a longer time.  Some will even straddle the center line between the two lanes to prevent such attempts.

But the reality is that the passersbys are following proper protocol while the lane straddlers are in the wrong.  Zipper merging is the most efficient way for traffic to come together when the number of lanes has been reduced.

This early merging behavior often leads to dangerous lane switching, serious crashes and even road rage.

Experts state the benefits of zipper merging is that research shows it decreases the possibility of dangerous lane switching and other accidents that lead to road rage.  Don’t worry about being nice at the first sight of a construction zone.  Stay in your current lane up to the point of merging. Then alternate with other drivers to safely ease into the remaining open lane.

So the bottom line is that courtesy driving in the context of lane closures is to proceed to the end of the lane where you take turns merging into the open lane.  This will lead to less accidents and road rage.

Creve Coeur Municipal Court

May 23, 2017

Located in St. Louis County

Creve Coeur Municipal Court Jody Caswell, Court Clerk

300 N. New Ballas Rd

Creve Coeur, MO 63141

(314) 432-8844 (314) 432-1962 (facsimile)

http://www.creve-coeur.org/101/Municipal-Court

Prosecuting Attorney Stephanie Karr

Court Dates and Docket Dates 

Did you get a ticket in the municipality of Creve Coeur? What should you do?

If you received a moving violation you have 3 options:

  1. Pay it
  2. Go to court and try to fight it yourself
  3. 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 Creve Coeur Municipal for over 15 years. We work with the prosecuting attorney to get your ticket reduced. Often we are successful getting the ticket amended to Other Parking Violation instead of a moving violation. 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.

Creve Coeur MIP Defense

  • Our Creve Coeur MIP lawyers handle MIP defense, where the object is keeping your record clean and your driver license from being suspended

Creve Coeur DWI Defense

  • Our Creve Coeur DWI attorneys handle drunk driving defense, where your driver license and your freedom are at stake. In 2017, Creve Coeur filed 67 alcohol or drug related charges.

Let our Creve Coeur Traffic Lawyers start helping you today. Contact Us

Creve Coeur Traffic Court Information

This page contains Court information Links for Creve Coeur, Missouri.

MO Speeding Ticket Lawyers | MO DWI Lawyers | MO MIP Lawyers

Missouri Speeding Ticket Defense | Missouri MIP Defense | Missouri DWI Defense

Kinloch officials ordered to court to explain traffic ticket

May 23, 2017

A St. Louis County circuit court judge ordered City of Kinloch offices to appear in court to explain why they allegedly would not allow a citizen to contest a traffic ticket she received last month.

The individual, Kathy Grant of Florissant, received a $125 traffic ticket in the mail on March 6.  The ticket accused her of driving 51-mph in a 40-mph speed zone on North Hanley Road in Kinloch on February 16. 

Grant denies she was speeding.  The ticket was mailed to Grant’s husband but she admits she was the driver of the car, heading to work that day.

The ticket showed a photo of the back of Grant’s car and license plate but no photo of the driver.  Also, the ticket did not contain a specific address as to where she was caught speeding. 

 The ticket payment date for the fine was April 5, however, she gave her ticket to an attorney to handle.

According to court documents, Circuit Court Judge Douglas R. Beach ordered City Manager Justine Blue, Kinloch Mayor Darren Small, and a Kinloch judge, Christopher Bent, to appear in court last week on May 11 to explain why the ticket was not a violation of Missouri law.

The ticket apparently allows the fine to be paid directly to a private company, and was not filed in Kinloch municipal court, according to the order.

Apparently a party had asked the Municipal Court for a trial on the allegations against them.  They were told that the notice was not a ticket. At this point, due process was not granted nor is it available to challenge the notice, the judge’s order stated.

The concern is that the notices are misleading to the public that they are part of the court process with due process of law.

 

MO Appellate Court rules on State’s driving eligibility rule

May 10, 2017

The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District (Division Three) held last week that Missouri substantive law governs the Director or Revenue’s decisions when it comes to issuance, suspension, or revocation of a Missouri license regardless of the driver’s home state at the time of conviction. The interstate Driver License Compact does not supplant the Missouri 10-year ineligibility rule under §302.060(9), the appellate court said.

 

Here is the background of the case.  The Director of Revenue appealed the trial court’s judgment ordering the DOR to issue a Missouri driver’s license to William Thanner.

 

Thanner received three DWI convictions while residing in Georgia between 1996 and 2010. He completed all requirements for reinstatement in Georgia and had a valid Georgia license when he moved in 2015 to Missouri. The Director of DOR denied Thanner’s application for a Missouri license, citing §302.060(9) imposing a 10-year ban following two or more DWI convictions. Upon judicial review, the trial court ordered the Director to issue Thanner a Missouri license, reasoning that Thanner’s Georgia license was entitled to reciprocity under the interstate Driver License Compact (§302.600).

 

The trial court’s judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for the trial court to reinstate the Director’s denial of Thanner’s application for an unrestricted license and proceed on his request for limited driving privileges.

 

 The opinion was written by Judge’s Lisa Van Amburg with judges Angela T. Quigless and Robert G. Dowd, Jr., concurring. The attorney for Appellant was Rachel Jones and the attorney for Respondent was Keith Liberman.

 

The appellate court stated the following as to its analysis:

 

“Here, the trial court adopted Thanner’s rationale and conclusions of law, relying entirely on a dissent opining that §302.160 applies only to drivers holding a Missouri license when the out-of-state offense occurred, and citing full faith and credit without analysis.2 Johnston v. Director of Revenue, 305 S.W.3d 465 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). In that case, a Kentucky driver was convicted of DWI in 1996, but his conviction was not affirmed on appeal until 2006. In the interim, Johnston’s conviction remaining unreported, and he moved to Missouri and obtained a Missouri license in 2005. When the Kentucky DWI conviction was finally affirmed and reported in 2006, the Director suspended Johnston’s Missouri license. Despite the fact that Kentucky was Johnston’s home state at the time of the offense, this court affirmed the Director’s suspension, reasoning that the Director was entitled to rely on the conviction date as reported by Kentucky. While unusual on its chronological facts, Johnston remains instructive for its adherence to a strict liability approach to Missouri’s 10-year rule under §302.060(9), consistent with other appellate decisions cited above.

 

‘Thanner did not develop his full faith and credit argument into legal analysis and essentially abandoned it at oral argument, conceding that it does not mandate reciprocal recognition of state-specific licenses (e.g., drivers, teachers, lawyers).  Simply put, Missouri substantive law controls the Director’s issuance, suspension, or revocation of a Missouri license regardless of the driver’s home state at the time of the conviction. Nothing in the Compact mandates differential treatment.”