Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

As St Louis DWI attorneys, our law firm has been fighting cases where defendants arrested on suspicion of DWI in many St Louis area counties, and counties across the state of Missouri, were holding that warrantless blood draws were legal and thus admissible into evidence at a criminal trial.

Now, the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District ruled that it is legal for law enforcement to seize a blood sample from a person after they are arrested for DWI without the person's consent and without a search warrant. See State v. McNeely issued on June 21, 2011. See Also St Louis injury lawyer blog article: Blood tests using alcohol swabs admissible.

Specifically, in 2010 Tyler McNeely was allegedly operating his motor vehicle while intoxicated in Cape Girardeau County Missouri. Law enforcement observed him speeding and he crossed over the center line three times. The Officer detected "a strong odor of intoxicants on his breath and his eyes were glassy and bloodshot." Tyler McNeely admitted to drinking and was swaying on his feet. He performed four field sobriety tests and refused to take a PBT (Portable Breath Test). Tyler McNeely was arrested for DWI in Cape Girardeau and he was read his Missouri Implied Consent and he refused to take a breath test.

The Officer informed him he was going to obtain a blood sample against his breath test and blood draw refusal. A lab technician at the St. Francis Medical Center Lab drew his blood that revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.154. The State of Missouri filed charges against him for driving while intoxicated. In his case he filed a motion to suppress the blood sample taken against his consent without a warrant. The trial court ruled that the evidence of the blood sample should be suppressed. The court relied on Schmerber v. California 384 U.S. 757 (1966), which the fourth amendment requires either a warrant or exigent circumstances to withdraw blood without consent. The court ruled that there was not any exigent circumstances in this case and that both a prosecutor and Judge were available to obtain a warrant and the officer chose not to.

The State of Missouri Appealed arguing that the Missouri Legislature recently eliminated the "none shall be give" language from Missouri Revised Statute 577.041 and that was the only thing under Missouri law preventing Police from obtaining blood samples without a warrant. The Court of Appeals agreed clearly stating that police have the authority to take a blood sample from an individual arrested for DWI without the consent of the person. The court reasoned that taking blood from a person does not violate their Fourth Amendment rights as long as the officer has ample cause to believe the person is driving under the influence and that the person's blood alcohol level would continue to decrease. The court went further to state that the Missouri Legislature removed the language "none shall be given" from Section 577.041 from the Missouri Implied Consent Law. The "none shall be given" language refers to if a person refuses to submit to any alcohol test then "none shall be given" and the refusal shall be admissible in court. The court interpreted this removal of language as now allowing the police to take a blood sample without a warrant. Due to the nature of this case the Appeals Court transferred the case to the Supreme Court.

This is an important case that needs to be monitored as it greatly affects a person's rights under the Fourth Amendment. No person wants to be subjected to their blood being drawn against their will without a court order by any police officer who claims to believe a person has been driving under the influence. Also, there are other issues that are not addressed in the case such as who pays for the blood draw and does a hospital have to do the blood draw.

Continue reading "Misosuri Court of Appeals Upholds Warrantless, Nonconsensual Blood Draws after a DWI Arrests" »

Several defendants, charged and convicted of Felony DWI under Missouri law, took their cases up to the Missouri Supreme Court in an attempt to reduce their charges from felony DWI to misdemeanor DWI under Missouri's repeat offender statutes. See Michelle Schaefer, et al., vs. Christopher Koster, issued on June 14, 2011. Denying three Missouri repeat DWI offenders' argument that Section 577.023 of the Missouri Revised Statutes was unconstitutional.

Specifically, the appellants were convicted of Missouri DWI related offenses on multiple occasions prior to 2008. The prior offenses were for a St Charles County DWI, Cole County DWI, and several municipal DWIs. In 2008 the law was changed to specifically include drunk driving guilty pleas entered pursuant to a Municipal SIS to count as a prior offense for Missouri felony DWI charges.

Many of the DWI defendants that come to our St Louis criminal defense firm are prior drunk driving offenders, and since their prior offenses in municipal courts, the law has changed affecting their cases. Specifically, on July, 3, 2008, House Bill 1715 became effective, repealing and reenacting section 577.023 (this sections deals with repeat DWI offenders and enhanced punishment). The important change to section 577.023 that the appellants were challenging is that any plea of guilty to a DWI in a municipal court that resulted in a Suspended Imposition of Sentence (SIS) could be used to enhance the penalty if a person is charged with a DWI again.

The three people in this case picked up new DWI cases and were being charged with enhanced punishment due to the change in the law. The law was challenged on a constitutional argument that it violated Missouri Constitution Article III, sections 21 and 23. Article III, section 21 prohibits amending any bill through its passage in either house as to change its original purpose. Article III, section 23, states that no bill shall contain more than one subject which shall be clearly expressed in its title. Basically, the change to the DWI penalties was added onto a bill about watercraft. The argument presented to the Supreme Court is that it is unconstitutional to add the DWI penalties onto a bill about watercraft. The purpose behind Article III, sections 21 and 23 is to prevent several matters that would not pass by themselves from being rolled into one bill so that the legislature would pass the bill.

The Supreme Court decided that the declaratory action is not the proper form to bring the argument. The Court decided that the constitutional issues should be litigated in each individual criminal case.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Strikes Down Attempt by DWI Lawyers to Declare Prior Offender Statute Unconstitutional" »