Tag Archives: traffic lawyer mo

Wildwood Municipal Court

Wildwood Municipal Court Traffic Attorneys
Wildwood, MO Traffic Court
Wildwood Traffic Lawyers

Did you get a ticket in Wildwood, Missouri?

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

Did you receive a Speeding ticket in Wildwood?

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

Wildwood Municipal Court
16860 Main St.
Wildwood, MO 63040

Phone: 636-458-8277
Fax: 636-458-6969

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

Presiding Judge
William Biermann

Provisional Judge
Stacy Jackson

Prosecuting Attorney
Molly Proost

Court Administrator
Laura Rechtin

Deputy Court Clerk
Tracy Poole

Court Hours
8:30am – 4:30pm

For cases prior to 1/1/2020 you can check on case status at Wildwood Missouri Records Search.

For cases after 01/1/2020 you can use Casenet

Winchester Municipal Court

Winchester Municipal Court Traffic Attorneys
Winchester, MO Traffic Court
Winchester Traffic Lawyers

Did you get a ticket in Winchester, Missouri?

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

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

Winchester Municipal Court

City of Winchester, MO website.

As of August 27, 2019, Ballwin Municipal Court is handling all Winchester Municipal Cases. The Ballwin Police Department began providing police service and emergency dispatch services on October 1, 2019.

Woodson Terrace Municipal Court

Woodson Terrace Municipal Court Traffic Attorneys
Woodson Terrace, MO Traffic Court
Woodson Terrace Traffic Lawyers

Did you get a ticket in Woodson Terrace, Missouri?

In 2018, Woodson Terrace Municipal Court issued 1527 tickets.
Stop Sign, Electric Signal Violation, Driving While Suspended, Possession of Marijuana, or any other ticket, our Woodson Terrace traffic lawyers can handle it where “no points” is the goal.

Woodson Terrace Speeding Ticket Traffic Law Defense
Did you receive a Speeding ticket in Woodson Terrace?

Our Woodson Terrace traffic lawyers handle speeding ticket defense, where “no points” is the goal.
Let our Woodson Terrace traffic law attorneys start helping you today. Fill out the form on the side of this page.

This page contains Court information and links for Woodson Terrace, Missouri.

Woodson Terrace Municipal Court
4323 Woodson Rd
Woodson Terrace, MO 63134

Phone: 314-427-2600 ext 147 or 131

City of Woodson Terrace, MO website.

Court Hours


8:30am – 4:30pm, on Court days the office will close at 4:00.

The Court tries matters such as violations of traffic code, maintenance code and other ordinances; and is held on the first Wednesday of each month at 6:30pm, unless the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, in which case the rescheduled date will be posted on our calendar.

Please note the following important information about paying fines:

  • Speeding Violations are not“automatically set up” to pay online and require a call to the court’s office.
  • Case(s) represented by an attorney that have received recommendation are also not “automatically set up” to pay online and request a call to the court office as well.

For information regarding warrants and disposition none will be given over the phone, you must appear in person with photo id.

Understanding Bonds:

A $100.00 cash bond is posted in person at the W.T. Police Station with either a State License or State ID card to cancel a W.T. Warrant and obtain a Court Date.

Once a bond is posted and a Court Date issued, then the bond may be applied in person on or before (depending upon case disposition) the court date given, at the court building, with State License or State ID. A Bond Consent Form must be filled out.

Bellefontaine Neighbors Municipal Court

Bellefontaine Neighbors Municipal Court Traffic Attorneys
Bellefontaine Neighbors, MO Traffic Court
Bellefontaine Neighbors Traffic Lawyers

Did you get a ticket in Bellefontaine Neighbors, Missouri?

In 2018, Bellefontaine Neighbors Municipal Court issued 1498 tickets.
Stop Sign, Electric Signal Violation, Driving While Suspended, Possession of Marijuana, or any other ticket, our Bellefontaine Neighbors traffic lawyers can handle it where “no points” is the goal.

Bellefontaine Neighbors Speeding Ticket Traffic Law Defense

Did you receive a Speeding ticket in Bellefontaine Neighbors?
Our Bellefontaine Neighbors traffic lawyers handle speeding ticket defense, where “no points” is the goal.
Let our Bellefontaine Neighbors traffic law attorneys start helping you today. Fill out the form on the side of this page.

This page contains Court information and links for Bellefontaine Neighbors, Missouri.

Bellefontaine Neighbors Municipal Court
9641 Bellefontaine Rd
Bellefontaine Neighbors, MO 63137

Phone: 314-867-0076
Fax: 314-867-1790

City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, MO website.

Presiding Judge
Hon. John Duepner
Court Administrator
Alysa Stewart

Municipal Court convenes at 6:30pm on the second Wednesday of each month in the Courtroom, located at 9641 Bellefontaine Road. Doors to City Hall open at 5:30pm. Cases are heard on a first-come, first-served basis. The Judge will call defendants in the order they have entered the Courtroom. Any payment is expected at the time of court appearance.

Municipal Court will also convene at 1:00pm on the third Wednesday of each month in the Courtroom. Doors to the Courtroom will open at 12:30pm. Attorney call will be at 1:00pm. Day court will cover Housing cases, Trials, Bond Forfeitures, and DWI’s.

Appropriate dress is required
All Defendants, under the age of 18, must appear with a parent or legal guardian
All electronic devices must be turned off

FEE SCHEDULE (Dated 01/2016)

MUNICOURT.NET: You can track your case or check on court/payment dates. https://www.municourt.net

Blood shot eyes, alcohol breath not enough for intoxication

A Missouri Western District appellate court recently ruled in favor of a driver charged with a DWI. Basically it said law enforcement use of evidence of the smell of intoxicants from Defendant’s breath and observing the driver’s bloodshot eyes was insufficient in of itself to show intoxication.

In this case, Defendant was pulled over by a state trooper for expired tags, not because of erratic driving. Defendant refused to blow. Defendant is appealing the circuit court’s judgment affirming the Director of Revenue’s decision to revoke his driving privilege for one year for refusing to take a chemical test pursuant to Section 302.574.

The defendant contends that the circuit court’s finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was driving a motor vehicle in an intoxicated or drugged condition was not supported by substantial evidence.

The appellate court said that after reviewing the record, there was no indicia of intoxication present at the time of Defendant’s arrest to support a finding of probable cause for that arrest. Trooper testified at trial that he was concerned that Defendant was intoxicated due to “the odor of intoxicants and then the bloodshot eyes and he admitted to drinking prior to the stop.” The Trooper testified that “I believed that he was under the influence, too impaired to drive.” However, he also testified that the only evidence of impairment was the smell of alcohol and Defendant’s bloodshot eyes. Defendant told Trooper that his bloodshot eyes were due to being tired. Although Defendant had admitted to drinking, his reported last drink was fifteen hours prior to the stop.

The State Trooper’s following testimony of what he observed failed to establish intoxication:
• Observed no other evidence of intoxication from Rocha’s eyes; he observed no glassy eyes, staring eyes, constricted pupils, slow reaction to light, dilated pupils, or anything else that Cool was trained to look for as evidence of intoxication.
• Observed no gross motor movements that would suggest impairment.
• Observed no signs of uncertain balance, swaying, staggering, stumbling, or falling.
• Trooper followed Defendant for almost two miles before stopping Defendant, and during that time he observed nothing about Defendant’s driving that would indicate impairment.
• Observed that when Trooper’s emergency lights went on, Defendant stopped almost immediately.
• Observed no verbal indicators of impairment such as slurred speech, confusion, incoherency, stuttering, or mumbling.
• Observed nothing about Rocha’s clothing or footwear indicated impairment, and Rocha exhibited no unusual behaviors.
• Observed that Defendant recited the alphabet correctly.

The appellate court reversed the lower court and remanded the case. The case was Carlos Rocha v. Department of Revenue. The case was heard before Division Four Judges: Judge Mark D. Pfeiffer; Presiding Judge, Gary D. Witt; and Judge, Anthony Rex Gabbert.

Grandview Municipal Court

Grandview Municipal Court Traffic Attorneys
Grandview, MO Traffic Court
Grandview Traffic Lawyers

Did you get a ticket in Grandview, Missouri?

In 2017, Grandview Municipal Court issued 5,161 tickets.
Stop Sign, Electric Signal Violation, Driving While Suspended, Possession of Marijuana, or any other ticket, our Grandview traffic lawyers can handle it where “no points” is the goal.

Grandview Speeding Ticket Traffic Law Defense

Did you receive a Speeding ticket in Grandview?
Our Grandview traffic lawyers handle speeding ticket defense, where “no points” is the goal.
Let our Grandview traffic law attorneys start helping you today. Fill out the form on the side of this page.

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

Grandview Municipal Court
1200 Main St.
Grandview, MO 64030
Phone: 816-316-4837
Fax: 816-316-4876
City of Grandview, MO website.

Presiding Judge
Hon. Ronald E. Johnson

Court Administrator
Rebecca Diederich

Prosecuting Attorney
Roger Potter

Office Hours
Monday-Friday 8:00am – 5:00 pm excluding Holidays

Court times
Municipal Court is held thee Mondays each month at 6:00pm.

Attorney Plea Docket is held the 1st and 3rd Court sessions of the month at 4:00pm

Proper attire must be worn at court sessions: no shorts, no sleeveless T-shirts, no halter tops, no flip-flops.

Defendants are responsible for being on time and present in court when their cases are called. Those who are not could have a warrant issued for their arrest for failing to appear for the hearing.


Safety reasons can be probable cause for a stop

In a recent appellate court decision, the court found a police officer had enough reasonable suspicion to pull over the defendant because of the totality of the circumstances he observed. Specifically, the need for medical attention as the reason for a traffic stop.

In this case, the officer observed Defendant enter his vehicle and vomit out the driver’s side window, which would have given the officer grounds to investigate whether Defendant needed medical attention. Defendant drove away immediately, and the officer then observed Defendant drive over a curb, and then take actions in what the officer suspected was an attempt to evade law enforcement.

Under the Fourth Amendment, an officer may approach a vehicle for safety reasons or to assist a motorist, or if the officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, so long as in either case the officer can point to reasonable, articulable facts upon which to base his or her actions. Based on the totality of circumstances of the officer’s observations, there was reasonable suspicion to justify the officer’s traffic stop of the defendant, due to the officer’s function as a caretaker.

David R. Galen (Defendant) had appealed the trial court’s judgment entered upon his conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI). He argued the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and admitting evidence obtained after a traffic stop because the officer lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop. The Appellate court affirmed the Warren County trial court decision.

The case was State of Missouri v. David R. Galen. The opinion was by Judge Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., with judges J.Kurt, S. Odenwald, and Colleen Dolan, concurring.

Attorneys for Appellant were Robert A. Murray, Stephen P. Wilson, and attorneys for Respondent included Joshua D. Hawley and Shaun J. Mackelprang.

A call to put teeth back into enforcing traffic violations

Did the 2015 municipal court reforms for traffic violations go too far?

That is the subject of a great editorial by the Kansas City Star a few weeks ago talking about how too many people with traffic tickets are not paying their fines and are getting away with it. Since the state-wide municipal court reform after the Ferguson uprising, there doesn’t seem to be any punishment for not paying fines and not showing up to court.

In many communities, traffic violators have figured out that they don’t need to show up to court because the effective tools of punishment such as higher fines, warrants for not showing up to court, or suspending a person’s license is not an option.

Maximum fines were lowered from $500 to $225. Many cities coffers are severely depleted and are finding it difficult to impossible to enforce law violators without an adequate budget. This has also carried over to enforcement of residential nuisance ordinances that are designed to keep housing safe, particularly with abandoned properties.

For example, one person who didn’t show up to court in a town near Kansas City had been arrested four times for a $450 ticket from 2015 for driving with no insurance and driving with a suspended license. She still hasn’t paid, and likely never will.

One judge was quoted as saying, “These people just continue to drive, except they don’t drive to court.”

One state senator tried to pass a bill to put some teeth back into law enforcement. His idea was that if a citizen fails to show up for a court date, a judge could order community service, issue a civil fine or put a hold on a driver’s license.

The editorial calls for Missouri to revisit its 2015 reforms with the goal of restoring some authority to its municipal courts to better find a balance between being overbearing on constituency and effectively punishing and enforcing our traffic laws. Because as the editorial states, “As of now, they’ve been effectively defanged.”

Court privacy ruling protects driver of borrowed rental car

Picture yourself driving a rental car that was rented by your friend or a family member. You are then pulled over by the police. The police want to search the vehicle. Do you let them? Do you even have a choice?

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling this week gave us clear answers. This Country’s high court said that people who borrow rental cars from family or friends are generally entitled to the same protections against police searches as the actual authorized driver who rented the vehicle.

The decision was unanimous. If a person is in lawful possession and control of the rental car they are deemed to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car, even if the rental agreement doesn’t list them as an authorized driver. Therefore, the police will have to have probable cause of a crime committed or a warrant to search the car.

The argument by the current administration was that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy of an unauthorized driver in a borrowed car. Therefore, police could search it without the unauthorized driver’s consent. Attorneys who argued against the search stated that around 115 million car rentals occur each year in the United States. And if the government wins their argument, police would be given an incentive to pull over a rental car driver who commits a traffic violation because they would know they have the right to search it if the driver is not on the rental agreement.

The case involved a driver named Terrence Byrd who in 2014 was driving his fiancée’s rental car on a highway in Pennsylvania. A state trooper stopped him alleging he had committed a minor traffic violation. The troopers observed that Byrd was acting nervously during the stop and he went on to admit that he had a marijuana cigarette in the car. The officers then searched the vehicle, telling Byrd that they did not need his consent because his name was not on the authorization form. When they opened the trunk they discovered 2,500 bags of heroin and body armor. Byrd would later admit that he planned to sell the drugs for $7,000. Byrd received a 10-year prison sentence.

Cops need a warrant to get your vehicle’s black box data

Missouri cops will need to get a search warrant before they can access data from your automobile’s black box.

A recent decision in the Western District of Missouri basically blocks law enforcement from obtaining your black box data after an accident, unless you either consent or they get a warrant.

The appellate court took up the case of a man that had been stopped at traffic and was struck by a semi from behind. The Missouri Highway Patrol then downloaded the data stored on the semi’s electronic control module (ECM). Officers did not use a warrant and argued that there were exigent circumstances, therefore, the semi driver had no expectation of privacy of the data. Up to then, obtaining the black box data had been standard procedure for the highway patrol.

The patrol officer claimed that the driver had given him consent, but that box had not been checked off in his police report. The appellate court relied on a recent US Supreme Court case on GPS spying to find the police arguments were insufficient.

Judge Cynthia L. Martin wrote: “Sergeant Meyers’s testimony underscores that ECM data was seized from West’s truck not because there was probable cause to believe that West had committed a crime and that evidence of the crime could be found in the truck, but instead to investigate an accident to determine whether West had committed a crime.”

The court added that to allow warrantless searches on these grounds would “emasculate” the Fourth Amendment to the constitution.

Here is an unofficial summary of the case and should not be used as legal doctrine:

(1) The State’s arguments on appeal asserting error in granting the motion to suppress which were not raised with the trial court are not preserved for appellate review.

(2) Either a reasonable expectation of privacy or trespass on a possessory interest in a Fourth Amendment protected effect will afford standing to assert a Fourth Amendment violation. Here, West was the lawful operator and possessor of the semitruck at the time the police physically intruded into the semi-truck’s passenger compartment to connect a computer to the ECM located underneath the semi-truck’s dash. That physical intrusion into, and occupation of, the semi-truck constituted an actionable trespass into a protected Fourth Amendment effect (a vehicle) which afforded West standing to move to suppress the data downloaded from the ECM.

(3) The automobile exception allows police to search a vehicle and seize
contraband found therein without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband and exigent circumstances necessitate the search. The State presented no evidence during the hearing on the motion to suppress to suggest or establish that the police had probable cause to believe that contraband or illegal items were located in the semi-truck.

(4) While the State presented testimony that ECM data might be overwritten if the semi-truck was moved, the trial court did not find this evidence to be sufficient to constitute an exigent circumstance permitting a warrantless search. The trial court’s finding was supported by substantial evidence.

(State of Missouri v. Anthony West, WD80879)