Tag Archives: traffic ticket attorney missouri

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.

Missouri appellate court rules on DWI probable cause standard

September 6, 2017

A recent Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District decision continues to give law enforcement a low burden to show probable cause to pull a DWI suspect over.

The case is Brian Charles Srader v. the Department of Revenue.  Srader was arrested for driving while intoxicated on February 15, 2015.  A breath test was performed on Srader at the police station.  The test showed that he had a blood alcohol content of .122 percent.  The Director of Revenue then suspended his driving privileges. Srader then petitioned the circuit court for a trial de novo with the sole witness being the arresting officer.  After the trial, the court entered its judgment to set aside the suspension of Srader’s driving privileges. The judge had found that the Director’s evidence was credible and that Srader had a BAC level over the legal limit of .08 percent. Despite the strong evidence for intoxication, the judge ruled that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest Srader for an alcohol-related traffic offense.  The Director of Revenue appealed to the court of appeals.

The appellate court reversed and remanded the circuit court’s decision. It held that the evidence which the circuit court found credible also established multiple indicia of intoxication. And these multiple indicia of intoxication was enough to establish probable cause for the arrest.  For example, the officer had seen Srader driving erratically.  And after the stop, the officer stated that Srader’s eyes were watery, glassy, and bloodshot and his speech was slurred.  Furthermore, the officer testified that Srader made inconsistent and suspicious statements about where he was coming from and if he had had anything to drink. Srader also voluntarily submitted to a breath test which showed that alcohol was present.

The court said that these facts when taken together was enough to show to the senses of a reasonably prudent person that Srader had been driving while intoxicated.  The circuit court had erred by concluding that probable cause was lacking in the arrest.

The opinion was written by Judge Alok Ahuja. The other two judges were Cynthia L. Martin and Lisa White Hardwick.  Attorney for the appellant was Rachel M. Jones. Theodore D. Barnes was attorney for respondent.

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.

MoDOT officials advise drivers to be cautious on eclipse day

August 18, 2017

It will be the first total solar eclipse in the St. Louis area since 1442.  At the same time local officials are concerned about traffic safety.

Transportation and police agencies across Missouri and Illinois have issued warnings about next Monday’s solar eclipse, warning that traffic snarls and potentially accidents could occur when motorists travel from prime viewing areas.

Jefferson and Franklin counties and points farther south are expected to be among the top spots for Missourians to watch the eclipse.

A national task force of communications personnel from each of 14 states in the eclipse’s “totality” path was created to help address traffic safety concerns.  Because this is rare event, the task force has had to look at how southern states have adapted and prepared for hurricanes. 

In Missouri, MoDOT has increased the number of staffers on motorist assist  vehicles.  They will work with the Missouri Highway Patrol to monitor highway rest areas for congestion.  The expectation is that if the rest areas get filled up, they will have to be closed.

MoDOT expects to see a large increase of motorists in the state.  Estimates place it anywhere between 300,000 to 1.2 million visitors from other states who will be traveling to this central state to see the eclipse.  Excess traffic is expected not just the day of the eclipse but the day before and after as well.

Illinois also expects an uptick in traffic. Estimates are from 100,000 to 200,000 expected to visit the southern Illinois viewing areas near Carbondale.

Because of the increased traffic, transportation leasers are advising visitors to find a safe location, arrive extra early, remain there for a good period afterwards, and leave late.

Drivers are encouraged to turn on their headlights and watch out for pedestrians on smaller roads. People are expected to be randomly parking and walking shortly before the eclipse to get good vantage points and drivers must be aware of their safety.

MoDOT is warning drivers that they cannot stop on interstate highways and that parking is illegal on shoulders.

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

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.”

Appellate Court rules on breathalyzer certification check

April 26, 2017

A recent Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District decision reversed and remanded the lower court by holding that a trial court erred in excluding the test result from evidence because the Director of Revenue laid a proper foundation for its admission.

The Department of Health and Senior Services regulation 19 CSR 25-30.051(4) requires annual certification of any breath alcohol simulator used to perform a maintenance check on an evidential breath analyzer. The Court went on to say that to lay a foundation for the admission of a breath test result at trial, the Director only need submit proof the simulator was certified at the time of the relevant maintenance check.  In this case, that check was performed within 35 days prior to the Driver’s breath test. The Court said the Director does not have to submit proof of certification from any other year for purposes of admissibility.

The Director of Revenue had appealed from the judgment of the trial court reinstating the driving privileges of Justin Scott Hickenbotham.  The Director argued on appeal that the trial court erred in reinstating the driver’s driving privileges because the court erred in excluding from evidence the breath test result showing Driver’s blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit.

The opinion was written by Judges Sherri B. Sullivan and Roy L. Richter.  Judge Colleen Dolan concurred.  Rachel Jones was the attorney for Appellant.  Attorneys for Respondent were Chastidy Dillon-Amelung and John F. Newsham.  The case was Justin Scott Hickenbotham v. Department of Revenue.

The Court referenced several previous cases in its analysis and stated the following: “Sellenriek’s and Kern’s reasoning that the only relevant evidence is that which demonstrates compliance when the breath test was administered is still good law and applies in this case. See Harrell, 488 S.W.3d at 208. As with the maintenance check provision, implicit in 19 CSR 25-30.051(4) is that a breath analyzer simulator certified at the time of the relevant maintenance check is capable of accurately calibrating the breath analyzer. Carey v. Dir. of Rev., —- S.W.3d —- (Mo. App. E.D. March 28, 2017); see Sellenriek, 826 S.W.2d at 340. Nothing in the regulations suggests the accuracy of the simulator at the time of the maintenance check is dependent on the certification of the simulator in prior or subsequent years. See Sellenriek, 826 S.W.2d at 340; Harrell, 488 S.W.3d at 208. “The Director need not prove the existence of certifications before the one in effect at the time of the relevant maintenance check in order to comply with 19 CSR 25-30.051(4).” Carey, —- S.W.3d —-. Instead, a foundation for the admission of the breath test result is laid when the Director presents evidence the simulator was certified at the time of the relevant maintenance check. Harrell, 488 S.W.3d at 208.

“Evidence of whether the simulator was properly certified in prior or subsequent years

goes to the weight of the breath test result, not its admissibility. See Kern, 936 S.W.2d at 862. Furthermore, Driver’s interpretation of 19 CSR 25-30.051(4) would mean a simulator not certified in 2013 or any subsequent year is effectively unusable and fails to account for simulators brought into use any time after 2013, an illogical reading leading to irrational results.”

The Court went on to say that in the present case: “The Director laid a sufficient foundation for admission of the result of the breath test administered in 2015 by submitting the 2015 simulator certification. The Director’s point on appeal is granted. Because the court did not make a finding as to whether Trooper Ganime had probable cause to arrest Driver, the cause is remanded for additional findings by the trial court.”

A $3.00 court fee applied to traffic tickets now under scrutiny

April 4, 2017

A $3.00 court fee charged to municipal court tickets that funds sheriff’s pensions is under scrutiny in Missouri.

Missouri’s municipal courts began in 2014 to charge a $3.00 court fee to defendants to help fund the Sheriffs’ Retirement Fund. However, some judges and legal scholars are questioning whether the charge is constitutional because the sheriff’s department does not operate at the municipal level.

As many retirement funds for government workers were having trouble receiving funding in Missouri and other states, that has not been the case for the sheriff’s fund. The $3.00 charge ended up increasing the retirement fund significantly, up more than $10 million in assets between 2012 and 2015.

Many sheriff employees throughout the state, particularly in rural areas, receive low wages and depend upon the fund’s pension to live off of after retirement.

The attorney general at the time, Chris Koster, issued three opinions that indicated the $3.00 court fee that funds sheriff’s pensions should be applied to the state’s municipal courts. The Missouri Supreme Court, which prior to this third opinion issued, had not approved the fee to be used at the municipal court level. But this last time in 20163 the court approved it, adding the fee to traffic tickets and other tickets at the municipal level in 2014. The charge applied to all municipal courts except for St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis.

Approximately 362 of the 608 cities, villages and towns in Missouri that have a municipal court may be refusing to charge the $3.00 sheriffs fun charge to municipal court cases. This now has the Sheriffs’ Retirement System seeking help to the municipal level governments to charge the fee and pass on the money.

C.F. Barnes, executive director of the retirement system, sent letters on March 6 to Circuit Clerks in 102 Missouri counties, asking them to enforce the Missouri Supreme Court’s August 2013 order to apply the surcharge to court cases.

This is setting up a fight between the Supreme Court, municipal courts and the Sheriffs’ Retirement Fund. Stay tuned as this story progresses.

Mo. looking to educate drivers on how to interact with police

March 28, 2017

To avoid violent and sometimes deadly encounters between drivers and the police, the Missouri legislature is proposing bills that would help educate both motorists and the police on proper conduct.

The state of Illinois recently passed a bill that sets out a set of rules of engagement for drivers and the police to follow. A similar bill in Virginia is set to be passed.  There are also a few states considering doing the same: Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

The idea is to make traffic stops and police interactions more transparent by educating both sides on how to behave. The so called “Rules of the Road” adopted in Illinois this February is a model for other states when it comes to the details of proper and safe driver behavior that can help reduce the stress during a police encounter.

In Missouri, leaders want to include the information as part of the driver’s examination, and even have suggested making a video that would have to be watched. 

The Illinois guidelines suggest the following:

If your driver’s license or insurance card are in the glove box or under the seat, wait until the officer arrives and inform him or her about it and ask permission to retrieve them.

Be sure to keep both hands on the steering wheel in plain view and leave them there until you are instructed otherwise.

Never exit the vehicle unless you are asked to do so.  Getting out of your vehicle gives the impression that you are being aggressive and could be a potential threat to the officer.

Other suggestions are to always be polite and cooperative and avoid arguing the officer.  You can always fight your case in court if you feel your rights have been violated. 

If you are concerned that the officer may be a fake officer, roll down the window a little and tell the officer and state that you would like to go to a public place to conduct the stop.  Most officers will allow this unless they have a reasonable suspicion that you could be intoxicated or impaired in some way.

Finally, when stopped, turn off the engine, so the officer knows you will not try to take off and potentially hit him.  Then turn on the internal lights and open the window partway before the officer gets to your window.  And, of course again, keep your hands on the wheel.