Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

If you or someone you know has run into trouble with the law regarding drinking and driving, you may be wondering about the penalties associated with a DUI/DWI conviction. Though the penalties are fairly uniform, they increase according to the number of times you have had such an alcohol-related conviction, becoming progressively harsher each time. In the State of Missouri each DUI/DWI is a two part process. One part is the criminal side of the case dealing with the actual criminal charge of DWI. The other part is the civil side dealing with your driver's license.

On the criminal side a first-time offender can face up to six months behind bars and a fine of up to $500. While such lengthy prison stays are rare for first-time offenders, it is possible if there are aggravating circumstances in your case. First time offenders also face a revocation of their driver's license depending on whether they took a breath test or not. If a person blew over 0.08 BAC then they face a 90 day suspension of their driving privilege. The first 30 days of the 90 day suspension they do not have any driving privileges, followed by a 60-day period of restricted driving privileges. These restrictions allow individuals to travel to and from work and school and little else. If a person refuses to take a breath test then they face a one year suspension of their driving privilege. They will be eligible for a hardship license after the first 90 days if they apply for a limited driving privilege (LDP) with the Missouri Department of Revenue.

It is important to understand that anyone arrested for DWI has time to appeal any license suspension that they face on the civil side of their DWI case. A person has 15 DAYS TO APPEAL THE LICENSE SUSPENSION whether they took a breath test or not. If you file an appeal you will be granted driving privileges while your appeal is pending.

Someone who has been pled guilty or convicted of a second DWI within five years of the first offense faces up to a year in prison and a fine of up to $1,000. Those who have a second drunk driving offense could have their license revoked for one year. It also is worth mentioning that anyone with two or more alcohol-related convictions is ineligible for an expungement of their driving record.

Drivers who have pled guilty or convicted of a third DWI are labeled "persistent offenders" under Missouri law and could potentially wind up behind bars for up to four years and be fined up to $5,000. Those convicted of a third offense will have their licenses revoked for 10 years and become a convicted felon. Furthermore, they face mandatory jail term of 10 days depending on the particular circumstances of your case.

In Missouri, a DWI/DUI conviction is considered a felony after the third conviction. Those who receive a fourth conviction are known as "aggravated offenders" and face up to seven years in prison and fines up to $5,000. Again, offenders will have their licenses revoked indefinitely and may apply for reinstatement after 10 years has passed.

Someone who commits five or more DWI offenses is labeled a "chronic offender" and faces up to 15 years behind bars. After the offender has served his time he may not ever have his license reinstated, it depends on the facts of each case.

Though the penalties detailed above sound harsh enough, the reality is there are plenty of punishments that go along with a drunk driving conviction that are not contained in the Missouri statutes. Dramatically increased insurance rates, fines, court costs, attorney's fees and a lifetime of having a DWI/DUI conviction on your record all add up. For a full list of punishments see Missouri Revised Statute 577.023

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri DWI defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis DWI law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)," published at DOR.MO.gov.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
SR-22 Insurance after a Missouri DWI - Select Insurance Team
Will Missouri move towards mandatory ignition interlock devices for DWI offenders?

Blood alcohol concentration, often abbreviated as one's BAC, is the most commonly used method for measuring the alcohol level of a suspected drunk driver. BAC is written as a percentage of alcohol in the blood. For example, someone with a BAC of 0.10 means that 10% of that person's blood by volume is alcohol.

In Missouri, most people believe there is only one number which qualifies as drivers as drunk. This is not the case. Instead, there are several different categories of drivers; each with its own level for what qualifies as intoxicated driving.

The first group includes the vast majority of Missouri drivers, those over the age of 21 who do not drive commercial vehicles. This includes ordinary people, moms and dads and young adults out for a drive in their family car. Among this group, a driver is considered legally intoxicated when their blood alcohol level exceeds 0.08. That means, in Missouri you are legally drunk when more than 8% of your blood by volume is alcohol.

The next group of drivers includes those who are above the age of 21 but who drive commercial motor vehicles. Those who operate tractor-trailers, semis, 18-wheelers, and even those who drive schools buses, are held to a different standard of legal intoxication. Drivers of commercial vehicles are deemed legally intoxicated when their blood alcohol concentration is 0.04 or greater.

The final group of drivers includes all those who are under the age of 21. According to Missouri law, those under 21 have no business consuming alcohol in the first place. Given this, the level of intoxication is set much lower than for other groups. Drivers under 21-years-old are deemed drunk when their BAC is 0.02 or greater.

One final number that bears mentioning is 0.15. Recent legislation in Missouri now says that those found to have a BAC greater than 0.15 will face harsher penalties than those who only slightly exceed the state's legal limit. If a driver operated a motor vehicle with a BAC between 0.15 and 0.20 they are required to complete a DWI Court program or other court ordered treatment program. If they do not complete the program they must spent at least 48 hours in jail. If a driver operated a motor vehicle with a BAC of greater than 0.20 BAC they are required to complete a DWI Court program or other court ordered treatment program. If they do not complete the program they must spend a minimum of 5 days in jail. See Missouri Revised Statute 577.010.

If you are arrested for DWI it is important that you have an aggressive attorney who understands the law so that you can avoid any unnecessary jail time.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri DWI defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis DWI law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)," published at DOR.MO.gov.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Drive Sober Missouri Campaign In Force Over Labor Day Weekend
Alcohol Supplier Found Not Guilty After Fatal Drunk Driving Accident

A question has been on the minds of many since the terrible incident last month when Jovan Belcher, linebacker for the Kansas City Chiefs, killed his girlfriend and then himself: Can police arrest someone for DUI for being passed out in a parked car?

The issue arose because Belcher was discovered passed out behind the wheel of his Bentley only hours before the gruesome murder/suicide took place. Police never arrested the man and only after the murder did autopsy results determine Belcher's BAC was more than twice the legal limit at the time of the killings.

Some have wondered why the police didn't do more, potentially averting the horrible events of later that day. The issue is that in the State of Missouri there must be proof of two things before an arrest for DUI can take place: intoxication and driving. That's because in Missouri it is not illegal to simply sit in your car drinking.

Several decades ago this was not the case and it was easy for police to arrest intoxicated drivers found in parked cars. That all changed in 1996, when lawmakers altered the definition of "driving" found in the state's DUI laws. The previous, and much broader definition, said that a person had to be driving or operating a vehicle or be in "physical control" of a car. The revised language eliminated the last clause regarding "physical control."

Since that language was altered in the Missouri law police have had to take into account other factors including the location of the keys. For instance, if there are no keys in a vehicle there will likely be no arrest made. If the keys are in the ignition but the car was not running the answer is hazier. Even if the car is running an arrest is not a sure thing unless there are other circumstances that indicate the car was recently in motion.

That's why drivers parked on private parking or in a parking lot might have a greater chance of avoiding an arrest, as someone would have had to see or be able to prove they were driving while intoxicated. On the other hand, drivers passed out in the middle of an intersection are nearly sure to be taken in given that the location of the vehicle provides ample evidence that the suspect was driving the car.

In our experience handling these types of DWI arrests in the greater St. Louis Area the police are typically arresting anyone with the keys in the car whether it is running or not. We have been successful in many cases arguing that the person was not operating the car depending on where the keys are located.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri DWI defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis DWI law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Without proof of driving, there's no case for DUI," by Christine Vendel, published at KansasCity.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Court Says Initial Refusal Not Enough To Justify License Revocation
Missouri's DWI Driver License Revocation Laws Raise Question of Fairness

Residents of Missouri who had an unfortunate run-in with the law might wonder whether the stain on their driving record has to follow them around for the rest of their lives. Thankfully, Missouri law permits expungement of a first alcohol-related offense from a person's driving record.

Expungement is the word for removing or deleting all court records of your arrest, plea deal, criminal trial or conviction. First-time drunk driving incidents are eligible for expungement, but not if the DWI resulted in a felony conviction. It's also important to note that expungement is not available for anyone who is convicted of driving a commercial motor vehicle while under the influence. Commercial drivers will be forced to keep the conviction on their record so that future employers are aware of the incident.

Under Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 577.054, individuals are permitted to have not only drunk driving convictions, but also guilty pleas expunged from their records. Administrative actions, including license revocation for refusing to submit to a breath test can also be expunged from a driver's record. However, it's important to understand that Missouri law only allows for the expungement of one offense from a driver's record.

The law says that once a person waits 10 years after the original offense occurred, so long as no other alcohol-related driving actions have occurred in the interim, then expungement is proper. So long as you meet all of the above requirements, you are then free to petition a judge to grant your expungement. Once the judge has decided you qualify, the court will then order the expungement. At that point, all the records of your DUI arrest, plea deal, criminal trial and conviction will be deleted. The effect of the order of the judge will restore such person to the status he or she occupied prior to such arrest, plea or conviction and as if such event had never taken place. This a huge benefit for people who had made a mistake with a DWI/DUI and they want to erase that mistake. One of the greatest benefits is that when a person applies for a job it will not show on a background check and the person will not have to disclose it.

Those who have been convicted of a minor in possession charge can also move for expungement. To be granted a clean slate, you will have to show the judge that you have had no other alcohol-related convictions since your original MIP incident. You'll also have to wait to apply for the expungement at least one year after the original conviction or after you have reached 21.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri DWI defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis DWI law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Strengthening Missouri's DWI Laws," published at DOR.MO.gov.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Officers Crack Down on Boating While Intoxicated in Missouri

Missouri's DWI Driver License Revocation Laws Raise Question of Fairness

A few weeks ago justices heard Missouri v. McNeely, a landmark case that could end several decades worth of uncertainty over the constitutionality of warrantless blood tests. The decision is so important that many experts believe the resolution to the case could spell changes for DUI laws across the country.

While we'll have to wait months to hear the ruling on the case, the justices appeared to tip their hands during oral argument. The majority of the Court appeared to believe that while the dangers of drunk driving are serious, they do not trump the protections afforded to citizens by the Fourth Amendment.

The case began when a suspected Missouri drunk driver, Tyler McNeely, was pulled over by a policeman after swerving down a road late at night. McNeely took and failed several field sobriety tests administered by the arresting officer and then declined to submit to a breath test. The officer then chose to drive McNeely to the local hospital to have his blood forcibly drawn rather than wait and get a warrant for the blood draw. While at the hospital, McNeely was strapped to a hospital bed as the nurse drew his blood.

The results of the blood test showed that McNeely was clearly intoxicated, with a BAC nearly twice Missouri's legal limit. Despite this evidence, a lower court threw out the results of the blood test. The case was eventually appealed up to the state's Supreme Court which concurred with the lower court judge. The Missouri Supreme Court agreed that the warrantless blood test was unconstitutional and qualified as a violation of McNeely's Fourth Amendment right to freedom from search and seizure. The Missouri Supreme Court held that police officers need to first obtain a warrant before taking blood from a suspected drunk driver unless the delay needed to procure the warrant will result in harm to someone's life or destruction of evidence.

Those who support the officer's actions are arguing before the U.S. Supreme Court that destruction of evidence is all but guaranteed in drunk driving cases and that warrantless tests should thus be allowed. Supporters say that any delay testing a person's blood allows for the alcohol to dissipate. Those opposed to warrantless blood tests point out that warrants can be obtained quickly, especially in cases where ample evidence of intoxication exists.

The justices appeared unconvinced by Missouri's argument that warrantless blood draws should be allowed. Justice Sotomayor asked how it could be considered reasonable to allow the police to stick a needle into someone's body without a warrant. Others agreed that taking someone's blood amounted to a government seizure that ought to be protected against by the Fourth Amendment.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri DWI defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis DWI law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Missouri v. McNeely: The Loss of Bodily Integrity in an Emerging Police State," by John Whitehead, published at HuffingtonPost.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
U.S. Supreme Court Will Consider Missouri Case About Warrantless Blood Testing
Missouri Court Says Initial Refusal Not Enough To Justify License Revocation

If you've ever been pulled over in Missouri and asked to get out of your vehicle to perform a few simple maneuvers, then you're likely already familiar with what is known as the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST). For those who have not yet been unlucky enough to have such an interaction, the SFST is a series of three tests performed during a traffic stop to determine if a person is driving with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit (0.08 in Missouri).

The field sobriety test was first developed back in the 1970s and has been tested so that it is admissible as evidence in a court of law. Though more basic field sobriety tests are done in certain situations, most officers rely on the SFST when a person is suspected of drinking and driving. The program was created by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration which trains officers all across the country, including those here in St. Louis, on how to perform the tests.

The three parts of the SFTS are the horizontal gaze nystagmus test (HGN), the walk-and-turn (WAT) and the one-leg stand (OLS). The HGN refers to an involuntary motion of the eye that naturally happens as someone looks from side to side. When a person is sober, HGN occurs when their eyes turn horizontally. When a person is intoxicated, HGN movement is much more distinctive. Someone who is under the influence would also have a more difficult time following a moving object, such as an officer's finger.

Officers performing this test look for signs that the suspect's eyes cannot smoothly follow a moving object. Officers also check to see if the eye twitching is distinct, a good indication that the driver is intoxicated. In fact, research from the NHTSA reveals that this test, if done properly, is able to indicate intoxication correctly 77% of the time.

The next field sobriety test commonly given is the walk-and-turn test. Though the name largely explains things, there is a bit more to say. The WAT requires that the suspect listen carefully and follow instructions while performing simple movements. Drivers who are under the influence of alcohol typically have a much harder time performing tasks that require both physical and mental concentration.

The WAT involves taking nine steps, heel-to-toe, in a straight line. After walking the appropriate distance, the subject is asked to turn around on one foot and return in the same way. Officers are trained to look for lack of balance, halting steps, failure to fully listen to instructions, failure to walk heel-to-toe and improper turning. Research says that 68% of those who demonstrate two or more failures with the WAT are have a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

Finally, the one leg stand is the field sobriety test perhaps most commonly seen in movies and on old episodes of Law & Order. This test requires that a suspect stand with one foot six inches off the ground and count aloud for approximately 30 seconds. If the subject sways, hops, or uses their arms for balance, the officer will note these as indications of intoxication. Though it may seem like this would be hard for most people to do sober, the NHTSA says that 65% of people who fail two or more indicators have a blood alcohol level greater than 0.10.

Though each test on its own is far from definitive, the NHTSA claims that research has proven the reliability of the package of tests. In fact, they claim that when each of the three tests is performed correctly, there is a combined 90% chance that officers will accurately assess a driver's level of intoxication.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri DWI defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis DWI law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Standardized Field Sobriety Testing," published at NHTSA.gov.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri's DWI Driver License Revocation Laws Raise Question of Fairness
College Students, Alcohol, and DWI

A shocking lawsuit was recently filed by citizens of Utah against a state highway patrol officer and her superiors after it was revealed that the trooper filed false DUI charges against potentially dozens of innocent drivers.

The officer, Lisa Steed, was fired by the Utah Highway Patrol at the end of last year for misconduct related to her professional duties. Attorneys suing the woman and her employer say at least 40 people have come forward thus far claiming that the officer wrongfully arrested them on DUI or drug possession charges. Plaintiffs' attorneys are claiming that the class action suit will show that there's a culture of corruption in the department that has been tolerated by higher-ups for many years.

One of the victims was a man who was pulled over for alleged speeding. His wife was in the car at the time and says her husband was going maybe 50 or 52 miles per hour. Steed said she clocked him going 73. The man was ultimately arrested and charged with DUI, though the charge was reduced to having an open container after a blood test proved he was not intoxicated. Despite his innocence, he ended up having to fork over almost $3,000 in fines before he was able to get his car back.

Yet another outrageous incident was caught on camera when Steed pulled a woman over in 2011. The woman was forced to participate in a series of field sobriety tests, all of which she passed. Despite having passed the tests, Steed arrested the woman for drunk driving. Thankfully the charges were later dropped after a blood test found no alcohol in her system.

Just what role Steed's superiors played in the mess has not yet been determined. To everyone's horror, Steed had been named "Trooper of the Year" in 2007 for making more than 200 DUI arrests. The extent to which Steed was pushed by her bosses to continue cracking down on suspected drunk drivers is not yet known.

So far Steed has not issued a statement regarding the suit and the Utah Highway Patrol has said through its spokesperson that it does not comment on pending litigation. It doesn't look good for the officer; the FBI has revealed it has launched an investigation against Steed. Many criminal defense attorneys in Utah believe her actions may have opened a can of worms. As it stands now a number of her previous convictions are now in danger of being overturned as Steed's credibility has essentially been destroyed.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a Missouri DWI defense lawyer capable of aggressively protecting your interests, contact our St. Louis DWI law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Fired Trooper Accused of Faked DUIs," by John Schriffen, published at News.Yahoo.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Enacts New Sentencing Guidelines

Will Missouri move towards mandatory ignition interlock devices for DWI offenders?

One issue that is continuing to confound judges and legislators across the country has to do with cellphones and the valuable information they contain in the context of a criminal investigation. The Constitution never could have anticipated how much information cellphones would contain, including location, travel information, financial records and a full picture of a person's friends and acquaintances.

Courts have been issuing divergent rulings regarding when and how cellphones can be inspected. One Ohio court held that police needed a search warrant to inspect a cellphone because, unlike a piece of paper that might be crumpled up in a suspect's pocket, a phone can hold vast troves of private data. However, California's Supreme Court said that police are able to look through a cellphone without a warrant so long as the phone is on the suspect at the time of arrest.

A debate is raging in the legal world over whether a cellphone is like a container of information, such a suitcase filled with drugs that police find in the trunk of a car, or whether they are instead more comparable to a face-to-face conversation that comes with an expectation of privacy. Regardless of the judicial approach, it's clear law enforcement agencies have figured out how important the information can be. In 2011, cellphone carriers say they responded to 1.3 million demands from police agencies about subscribers.

One of the most sought after bits of information contained in smartphones is location and court rulings with regard to location records have varied wildly. Privacy advocates and defense attorneys argue that a trail of where a suspect goes is obviously private while law enforcement officers say that consumers have no privacy claim over signals transmitted from their mobile device to a company's cell tower. Delaware, Maryland and Oklahoma have proposed legislation that would require police to get a warrant before requesting such information from carriers. California attempted to pass a similar law but the governor, who worried that it would be problematic for law enforcement agencies, struck it down.

Given a lack of federal legislation on the subject, courts have been divided. In Texas a federal appeals court said that police did not need a warrant to track suspects through cellphones. Louisiana is set to hear a similar case and the decision will be closely watched. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the issue, something many are hoping happens in the near future. One recent case that many hope indicates the way the Court is leaning (and that we discussed here) involved an indirectly related issue of police installing a GPS tracking device on someone's car. In that case, the High Court held that the police must first obtain a search warrant before engaging in such monitoring.

If you have had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Courts Divided Over Searches of Cellphones," by Somini Sengupta, published at NYTimes.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Police and the Importance of "Pocket Litter"
General Petraeus Affair Raises Concerns About E-mail Privacy in Missouri

The major cell phone providers, including AT&T, Verizon and Sprint, may be required to keep information about their customers' text messages for at least two years according to a proposal that various law enforcement agencies submitted to Congress.

A group of different police organizations asked legislators to require wireless companies to retain information, warning that a lack of federal requirements leaves a major hole in the ability of law enforcement agencies to launch proper investigations. The move was designed to include text message retention in an upcoming overhaul of the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act, a privacy law meant to reflect the new realities of the modern technological era.

As text message usage has exploded recently so have the instances of their use in criminal investigations. They have been used as evidence in robberies, drug dealing and financial fraud cases. One great example occurred in 2009 when SkyTel turned over a whopping 626,638 text messages in Michigan.

Currently, the approaches used by the various companies are all over the place. Verizon and some others retain their text messages only for a brief period of time. Others, including T-Mobile do not store the messages at all. A Justice Department document obtained by the ACLU found that in 2010, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint did not store the contents of text messages. Verizon did for up to five days, a change from its earlier no-logs-at-all position, and Virgin Mobile kept them for 90 days. The carriers generally kept data like the phone numbers associated with the text for 90 days to 18 months; AT&T was an outlier, keeping it for as long as seven years, according to the chart.

The groups making the request include the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association, the National District Attorneys' Association and the National Sheriffs' Association. It has not yet been made clear by the groups whether they want the telecommunications companies to store the content of the text messages or only to hold on to data including the numbers used to send and receive the messages. No matter which approach is employed it will be a massive responsibility for the cell phone providers with some 2 trillion text messages sent in the U.S. last year, coming out to nearly 6 billion per day.

The problem with the request for retaining the text messages is that there is ultimately only one reason for companies to do such a thing: to keep databases of information on their customers so police officers can fish for evidence at their leisure.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Cops to Congress: We need logs of Americans' text messages," by Declan McCullagh, published at CNET.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Police and the Importance of "Pocket Litter"
Need to record the police? There's an app for that

Late last year a man in St. Charles County, Missouri was arrested and charged with recklessly and knowingly exposing someone to HIV. The act of exposure was not unprotected sex; instead, it happened when the man, Willie Bishop, bit an officer attempting to take him into custody on outstanding warrants. For reasons passing understanding, Missouri's outdated law on HIV-exposure makes biting a felony, this despite the fact that the Centers for Disease Control says there is almost no risk of HIV transmission via biting.

The state's law HIV exposure laws have come under fire by advocates who say they represent an unscientific and fear-based attack on those living with the virus. Last year at least five criminal cases were brought against people in Missouri for HIV exposure. These cases, including the one brought against Bishop, demonstrate how ignorance with regard to actual risks of HIV transmission is hard to fight, especially when it is codified into law. In Missouri, the punishment can be so severe that it's possible to be sentenced to life in prison if you infect others without their knowledge.

Missouri passed the first version of its HIV criminal law in 1988. But unlike other states with similar laws, which criminalize only sexual behavior without disclosure of an HIV-positive status, Missouri's law outlines a series of behaviors which the state identifies as reckless exposure. These include:

1. Through contact with blood, semen or vaginal secretions in the course of oral, anal or vaginal sexual intercourse; or
2. By the sharing of needles; or
3. By biting another person or purposely acting in any other manner which causes the HIV-infected person's semen, vaginal secretions, or blood to come into contact with the mucous membranes or non-intact skin of another person.

Missouri law says it is a Class B felony to expose a person to HIV if the defendant knowingly acted in a reckless manner without knowledge and consent through oral, anal or vaginal sex. If the victim becomes infected, the charge is increased to a Class A felony and the use of a condom is not a defense.

Lawmakers felt the urge to go further and, in 1997, amended the law to make it easier to prosecute HIV-positive individuals. The amendment allowed evidence of other sexually transmitted infections to be used as proof of reckless exposure. The law specifies primary or secondary syphilis infections, gonorrhea or chlamydia as evidence that an HIV-positive person has broken the law.

Such discrimination against people with HIV and AIDS is fueled by policies like the one in Missouri that are not based on scientific evidence but instead on old fears. For instance, the Missouri law specifically identifies biting as reckless exposure, though there are questions as to whether this is true. The CDC has documented one and only one case where HIV was supposedly transmitted by biting. That is one case out of one million identified HIV infections. Even this one case is viewed with suspicion given that experts say the case involved a sex worker who bit her client and the man claims that is how be became infected with HIV. The sex worker says that the two had engaged in sexual activity and that's where the infection came from.

Beyond the law criminalizing HIV exposure, those people in Missouri who are HIV-positive people are asked to sign a document in which they acknowledge their HIV-positive status and specifically admit to understanding the state's law with regard to HIV exposure. Signing the document is required for patients to be granted access to medical case management and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program. Experts say that prior to signing such a document, a person with HIV should first consult with an attorney. Too many people sign such important legal documents while in a state of shock and may not fully realize what they have agreed to.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Advocates alarmed by spike in Missouri prosecutions of HIV-positive persons," by Todd Heywood, published at WashingtonIndependent.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Serial Hugger Arrested After Embracing Women in Suburban St. Louis
Missouri's Sex Offender Registry Could Get Smaller

A recent report out of the ACLU sounds like a terrifying scene from George Orwell's 1984. The scary incident involves police installing video surveillance at a private home in Missouri and has left the civil rights group worried about the police invading individuals rights to privacy.

The incident involved a woman living in Platte City, MO. Apparently the police department went in and installed a wildlife camera in a tree in a privately owned but vacant lot next to her property. The camera was then trained on her house, her backyard and specifically her bedroom window.

Apparently the episode was started after the city had issues with the woman's father. The father of the woman (who lives in the other half of the duplex) had been feeding wild cats in violation of a city ordinance and officials were irritated at his repeated refusals to obey their orders to stop. In response, they decided to place a camera in the neighbor's tree and watch over the duplex.

The surveillance camera remained in the neighbor's tree for three days and took time-lapse pictures of the house from 7 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. each day. The camera was only ever uncovered because the woman who lived in the house happened to notice it and called the police. The officer who arrived on the scene feigned ignorance, claiming that it must have been installed to watch people walking through the nearby woods. The city removed the camera the next day and has now admitted the story about the woods was a lie.

After a series of letters appeared in the local newspaper, the city eventually wrote a memo admitting to many of the facts explained above. They said the only real mistake they made was in not establishing a policy before placing the camera in the tree and in not sending officers and the police chief to privacy training beforehand.

Since then, the mayor has finally issued an apology to the woman and expressed appropriate regret about the intrusion into the family's privacy. The mayor acknowledged that the action could lead to distrust of government and really their shatter faith in elected officials. The letter also said that the city would launch an investigation into the matter and into the police department and was even considering disciplinary action against responsible staff members.

One line in the initial memo that got the ire of the ACLU was the phrase about not having a policy in place. The ACLU points out the Fourth Amendment and the requirement for a warrant before a search can take place is all the policy the city needs. Fourth Amendment issues have been in the news a lot recently but this Missouri incident represents one of the few times that the privacy of someone's home has come into question, an area where privacy is typically seen as sacrosanct.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Police Install Camera Focused on Back Yard of Woman's Home," by Jay Stanley, published at ACLU.org.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Police and the Importance of "Pocket Litter"
Need to record the police? There's an app for that

Just days after the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the issue of gun violence has made national headlines. Though the episode at the elementary school was especially tragic, gun crime takes place every day and all over the country.

In fact, within only a few days of the shooting, here in Missouri, Gary Sancegrow, 30, was charged with first-degree murder over the shooting on Saturday of Christopher Parsons, a 31-year-old Washington County, MO deputy sheriff. Parsons was shot and killed while responding to an emergency call early about an unconscious person near Mineral Point, a small town located southwest of St. Louis. Parsons was shot with a rifle as emergency crews loaded the unconscious person into an ambulance. Sancegrow was subsequently arrested without a struggle and is now in jail.

The fact is there are simply lots of guns floating around the state which then leads to the prevalence of such gun crimes. Data shows that in Missouri, between 2008 and 2012, there were 3,804,462 background check applications processed. This year alone, 432,060 such applications have been processed. The sea of guns means that Missouri has a gun ownership rate of 72.06 per 1,000 citizens.

Given the recent tragedy, it's likely that elected officials will push police to crack down on gun violence and maybe even seek to introduce new legislation that will stiffen Missouri's gun laws. In the meantime, it's important to know exactly what your rights are in Missouri in case you are stopped by a law enforcement official.

In Missouri, there are no state licensing requirements for the possession of a rifle, shotgun or handgun. However, it is a misdemeanor to have an unloaded firearm, regardless of the type, while intoxicated. Even more worrisome, it's a felony in the state to possess a loaded firearm while intoxicated.

Certain groups of people face restrictions on when or if they can possess weapons. For one thing, those who have been convicted of a dangerous felony or an attempt to commit a dangerous felony are prohibited from possessing a concealed weapon for five years after such conviction or imprisonment. It's also illegal for fugitives, those who are habitually intoxicated or mentally incompetent to possess firearms.

In Missouri, laws say that it is illegal to carry a firearm on your person without a concealed carry permit issued by any state. This requirement does not apply to what happens inside a person's home, while hunting or while traveling continuously through the state. To receive such a carry permit, you must be at least 23 years of age, a citizen of the United States, a resident of Missouri for at least six months or a member of the armed forces stationed in Missouri or a spouse of such a military member. You can then request an application and the concealed carry endorsement will appear on your Missouri's driver's license.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "What are the Gun Laws in Missouri?," published at About.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
St. Louis Man Wearing Spider-Man Mask Arrested for Robbing Pizza Delivery Guy
Undercover St. Louis Police Officers Set to Begin Double Duty as Pizza Delivery Drivers

Everyone should know by now that you are not able to hide from police while logging on to your personal Internet connection. Your IP address reveals the location and person assigned to that Internet connection, something the police have access to without the help of a warrant. But what about people who try to steal from other unlocked Wi-Fi signals? According to a recent ruling by a federal court in Pennsylvania, they too have forfeited their privacy.

The ruling is among the first to wrestle with recent technological changes and the Fourth Amendment which is designed to protect citizens from unreasonable searches by the government. Law enforcement agencies are required to obtain a search warrant before gathering information when suspects have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The problem is not a small one according to some numbers gathered by a research group known as Wi-Fi alliance. The group found that 32% of respondents said they had tried to get on a wireless network that was not theirs. Police identify these people through use of special software designed to spot Wi-Fi thieves. The question that the federal court in Pennsylvania dealt with (and which is now moving on to a federal appeals court), is whether police are allowed to make use of such software without first getting a search warrant.

In the case at issue, Pennsylvania police were trying to find a man they suspected of downloading child pornography by tracing downloads to an IP address that was linked to a Comcast account. The police tracked down the legitimate owner of the IP address and discovered the subscriber was not the man they were after and decided someone nearby must have been stealing the Wi-Fi access. They turned to a program called "Moocherhunter" to track down other devices using the subscriber's account. This led them straight to a man across the street, Richard Stanley, who was found to be in possession of child porn.

Stanley sought, unsuccessfully, to suppress the evidence saying that police should have first gotten a warrant to sue the "Moocherhunter" program. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Joy Flowers Conti said that Stanley could expect no more privacy than the legitimate subscriber. Judge Conti said that a subscriber does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her IP address or the information given to his or her Internet service provider. Likewise, someone stealing another person's access to the Internet also lacks an expectation of privacy in that connection.

While Stanley's defense attorney agreed that subscribers forfeit their privacy because IP addresses are publicly available, that doesn't mean that all Internet users should. Stanley never broadcasted his location when he logged on to the Internet and, according to his defense counsel, the police should have had to get a warrant before finding his location.

Judge Conti relied on a Supreme Court case from 1979 that held the police did not need a search warrant to use a device that recorded the telephone numbers dialed by a suspect. The Court said that a telephone user understands that when he dials a number, he is asking the telephone company to connect him, giving up information regarding the number he is calling to a third party and thus losing the expectation of privacy. The question is whether ordinary people have the same understanding of how their computers and Internet signals operate.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Pilfered Wi-Fi Is No Shield From Prying Eyes of Police," by Joe Palazzolo, published at WSJ.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
U.S. Supreme Court Will Consider Missouri Case About Warrantless Blood Testing
Federal Criminal Law Reaches Deep Into Missouri

Missouri police have a relatively new weapon in their arsenal to track down criminals: a device mounted on a patrol car that automatically scans license plates, looking for cars that have been reported stolen. The system is known as Automated License Plate Recognition and is made up of four cameras atop the patrol car's lights bar that are capable of scanning in every direction. The cameras then connect to a computer in the trunk of the car that is linked to the database found in the officer's computer in the front seat.

The cameras, in use in Europe since the 1990s, first appeared in St. Louis last year and was installed in three department squad cars. The license plate scanners are growing in popularity among area departments. Town and Country police were the first to begin using the systems, back in 2008. St. Louis County, Chesterfield and Richmond Heights police also are among a handful of departments to have at least one car equipped with the scanners.

The system works with a computer attached to the cameras that checks the nearby license plates against various crime databases, including wanted suspects, stolen vehicles and sex offenders. It can also check for tax dodgers. If the computer finds a match, a beep alerts the officer. Along with alerting officers about stolen plates, the devices can assist with other crimes that may involve a suspect vehicle, such as missing individuals, bank robberies, or any other crime where a license plate was reported.

The system runs the whole time an officer is in the car and can capture up to 3,600 plates per hour. The scanners are designed to work at night and can even recognize a plate passing by at up to 160 miles per hour. The system being used in St. Louis also stores the time and GPS coordinates of every plate it photographs, providing police with a database should the need ever arise. With the map, a detective can theoretically type in a license plate number seen at a crime scene and quickly find a list of other places where it has been spotted by cameras. The scanners could also be used to confirm (or refute) a criminal suspect's alibi regarding his whereabouts at a particular time and date.

In the first five months that the system was up and running in St. Louis it produced 37 felony crime hits, 65 stolen vehicles and 228 matches for wanted vehicles in the national crime database, a track record law enforcement officials view as a resounding success.

There are questions though about the incredible amount of data the police will be able to collect. Though the ACLU doesn't specifically object to the technology, its spokesman says that it raises tremendous privacy issues. The thing that most troubles the group is that in most cases the police will retain the data gathered, even if no one is ever charged with a crime. The worry is that retained information could be used to help tie someone to a later criminal investigation or lead to tracking of people who have done nothing wrong.

If you've had a run in with the law and find yourself in need of a St. Louis criminal defense lawyer capable of fighting for your freedom, don't hesitate to contact our St. Louis criminal law firm today at (314) 863-0500.

Source: "Car-mounted cameras alert St. Louis cops to iffy plates," by Patrick O'Connell, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Need to record the police? There's an app for that

St. Louis police off to a violent start to the year as use-of-force increase

In many DWI cases as part of the license reinstatement the State of Missouri requires "SR-22 Insurance" for 2 years. Many times our St Louis DWI defense lawyers can prevent the license revocation or suspension and sometime get our clients reinstated without SR-22 insurance being required, however, sometimes this insurance is necessary. What exactly is SR-22 insurance? It is a specific type of insurance that requires registration f the insurance with the Missouri DOR, Department of Revenue which runs Missouri's DMV. This is required so the State of Missouri can monitor and confirm you are carrying auto insurance for 2 years as part of the license reinstatement after a DWI.

DO NOT get this SR-22 coverage through your current auto insurer, as your rates may skyrocket. Instead, get an SR-22 insurance policy as a supplement to your current auto policy. This is a way to hopefully avoid rate increases due to the SR-22 filing. This requires a knowledgeable insurance agent to write the SR-22 policy correctly, our law firm recommends Select Insurance Team's SR-22, they have helped many of our clients in the past with SR-22 insurance.

Many factors go into the defense of a DWI and the license suspension or revocation. The sooner you get a good Missouri defense lawyer involved the better. Our office offers free consultations to discuss your options and review the specific facts of your case. Call the St Louis attorneys at Sansone / Lauber today at (314) 863-0500.