Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

Guest Author Marina Salsbury, not affiliated with the St Louis law firm of Sansone / Lauber . Marina Salsbury planned on becoming a teacher since high school, but found her way instead into online writing after college. She writes for Online College Classes and other sites about everything from education to exercise.

Each fall parents send their children off to college with a combination of pride and worry. Aside from meeting new people, registering for classes online, and getting to know a new place, parents know their children will probably have their first experiences with alcohol at college if they haven't already, it's not something they like to focus on. Unfortunately, DWIs and college students are a very real combination.

Approximately 900,000 people are arrested for DWI each year. Of these, close to 100,000 are college students. This means 11 percent of DWI arrests across the nation are college students and approximately 12 percent of these college students will be critically injured or killed.

Aside from traffic collisions, DWI charges can have serious ramifications for students, especially those under 21 years of age:

• Students under the age of 21 can face additional charges as well as DWI if they are caught driving intoxicated.
• When given a breathalyzer test, in many states those under 21 are considered intoxicated at much lower blood alcohol levels than those of legal drinking age.
• Students under the age of 21 can face stricter penalties and stiffer fines compared to those people over 21 when charged with DWI.
• Being charged with any crime, including DWI, may be in violation of a college's code of student conduct, and penalties from the school can range from probation to expulsion.
• Aside from DWIs, alcohol-related incidents on college campuses are on the rise. Statistics for college students between the ages of 18 and 24 indicate:
• Sex: 100,000 students have reported being too intoxicated to recall whether or not they had consented to sexual intercourse. 97,000 students reported being the victims of sexual assault or rape.
• Criminal Activity: intoxicated students are frequently involved in assaults, vandalism, criminal damage, or have been involved with campus security in some manner.
• Death: 1,825 students are killed in alcohol-related incidents (not including suicide).
• Dependence: 31 percent of students can be considered abusers of alcohol while 6 percent can be considered dependent.

Students on college campuses are often away from home for the first time in their lives. Meeting new friends, partying, and other college social activities often revolve around alcohol. While many young people experiment with alcohol without any short- or long-term ill effects, there are those who do face serious consequences. DWI charges are just one of the many things that can go wrong. Students who think they can drive safely after drinking not only endanger others' lives and their own, but often find themselves on a short track to academic probation or worse.

For parents, teaching children to be responsible about alcohol and its consumption will benefit them most. Be sure to sit down with your children before they leave for college and talk about alcohol, partying, and their possible ramifications, especially when it comes to driving. By having an open and honest conversation with your children you may very well lessen their risk of becoming an alcohol-related statistic and, more importantly, you may be saving their lives.

Our St Louis DWI defense law firm handles hundreds of DWI cases every year. A good percentage of our clients are either factually innocent or the police acted inappropriately and the evidence was obtained unconstitutionally. We have even had cases where our client's breath results were below the legal limit of .08 BAC, yet the police charge them anyways. Below is an example of one case of an innocent man, wrongfully arrested, and the police paid for it!

Man arrested for DUI sued the city after his arrest and settled his lawsuit against Naperville for $10,000. Local CBS DUI News Story. He claimed that he was humiliated when the city released the the defendant reportedly admitted to drinking four to five beers at a Memorial Day fest, and failed a field-sobriety test, he blew a 0.0 on the Breathalyzer test administered at the time of arrest.

His lawsuit accused Naperville police of engaging in "a pattern of false DUI arrests", particularly during the time frame between Memorial Day and the Fourth of July. With local and state revenue down, the defendant charged police with trying to boost proceeds along with recognition to the city.

The man was ultimately released without charges filed on May 30. The reason for the lawsuit focuses on his treatment as a charged defendant, with his mug shot and fingerprints taken and his embarrassment when the information was reported and printed in the newspaper.

Illinois is only one of many states cracking down on everything from minor traffic offenses to DUI offenders, in the hopes of bringing in more revenue to their respective cities and counties. Whether or not this episode was part of a planned operation to falsely accuse residents of driving while intoxicated is up for debate. However, it may behoove the infamous state of Illinois to be better stewards of their legally gained tax monies rather than involve themselves with yet another indiscretion that magnifies the corrupt goings-on's of the state.

This post is by Guest Author, Carol Montrose, who is not affiliated with our law firm and this article does not necessarily reflect the legal opinions or views of Sansone / Lauber.

Whether or not you feel you deserve a DUI, if you get pulled over and you've been drinking (even if it's only a couple of beers) there's a good chance you're going to get one. This can cause a major headache in your life (although a lot less major than if you have an accident while under the influence of alcohol) because you can lose money, your license, and even your freedom in the process, depending on the state you live in, the severity of the charges, and the judge assigned to your case. But just because you are picked up for a DUI and then convicted and sentenced in court doesn't mean you don't still have legal recourse to fight the charges. Here's how to appeal the ruling and try to get it overturned or at least aim for a lighter sentence.

1. Ask for a new trial. Did you know that you can make an immediate appeal to the judge responsible for presiding over your trial? If you feel that your case was mishandled (the evidence, in particular), leading to an unfair conviction, or if you feel that the sentencing was too harsh for your infraction (especially if you are a first-time offender) then you can ask immediately for another trial. Unfortunately, judges rarely grant such requests, so you'll probably have to take it to the next level.

2. Hire an attorney. Once you have ascertained that an appeal to a higher court is your only course of action, it's time to lawyer up. Your goal is to find an attorney who has a good track record with cases similar to yours. He or she should know the state laws backwards and forwards, including how evidence could be mishandled (providing for the crux of your case, since you won't be tried a second time, but rather your first trial will be reviewed for inconsistencies or mistakes). An experienced lawyer will also be well aware of procedures such as what paperwork to file and what deadlines to observe.

3. File immediately for appeal. You may not have much time to file for an appeal after sentencing so you need to shake a leg. In some states, you are required to file within as little as ten days, while other states may offer up to thirty days to file. The point is, you don't have much time if you want a second chance to fight your DUI charge.

4. Ask for a stay of sentencing. One thing that most people would neglect to do if not for the advice of a good lawyer is to ask for the sentence to be stayed pending appeal. This basically means that you will not have to begin carrying out your sentence until after a decision has been made regarding your appeal.

5. Seek out substance abuse education. Regardless of whether it is required by your sentence, you should enter into substance abuse education before the hearing for your appeal. In some cases, showing that you are committed to making amends for your infraction could go a long way toward getting a reduced sentence, if not winning your appeal. And frankly, if you were caught on DUI charges once, it's almost certainly not the first time you were drinking and driving. Maybe some education on the dangers of your behavior will save you from more serious charges down the road.

Carol Montrose writes for New Jersey DUI Attorney, a New Jersey DWI defense law firm.

As DWI lawyers commonly argue to a jury, it is not illegal to drink then drive, it is illegal to drive while intoxicated. So when are you legally intoxicated? How do you know? Best choice is to avoid the situation all together, but in reality, we all like to have fun and not always call a taxi or have a designated driver available. Now you can estimate your level of intoxication, to help decide if you are considered legally intoxicated, from your cell phone. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) just put out and App for the iphone and android called "Show Me My Buzz" (Download App Here). The idea behind it is simple, enter some basic information to calculate your Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC). If you go to your market on your android phone or your app store on your iphone you will find a description of the app along with user reviews.

The App is very simple it has categories for weight, hours, beer, wine, liquor and male or female. You enter your information and it calculates your BAC along with a message depending on how high your BAC is. When you BAC gets close to the Missouri Legal limit of .08 it tells you "your buzzed" and you could be arrested for drunk driving. It can be a useful tool to help you if you have been out drinking with friends. The best part about the app is on the bottom of the page it has a button for taxi which automatically dials a taxi company.

MoDOT assistant chief engineer, Don Hillis stated "this new app is a creative way to get people talking about the subject and then finding a sober driver." Missouri is the 2nd state in the nation to make an app like this available. The important thing people need to remember is that in the state of Missouri it is illegal to operate a vehicle with a BAC above .08. See Missouri Statute 577.012, stating "A person commits the crime of "driving with excessive blood alcohol content" if such person operates a motor vehicle in this state with eight-hundredths of one percent or more [.08 BAC] by weight of alcohol in such person's blood."

If you play around with the app it becomes clear that it is easy to get to that thresh hold quickly if you are not paying attention to how much you are drinking. As an experienced Missouri DWI attorney I recommend every client of mine to have a designated driver. Also, we always suggest to our clients that they purchase an inexpensive portable BAC machine that you can pick up at your local drug store or auto parts store. These devices are accurate enough to determine if you should be driving or whether you need to leave your car and get a cab ride home.

See CBS St Louis News Article by Brett Blume, Drunk Yet? There's an App for That!

Continue reading "Missouri Department of Transportation ("MoDOT") Creates a DWI Phone App for the Residents of the "Show Me" State: "Show Me My Buzz"" »

Guest Author: Allison Gamble, Student of Psychology

Arrests and convictions for charges of driving under the influence are often made based on evidence from field sobriety tests. While law enforcement officers often contend these tests are foolproof, forensic psychology and the statistics show otherwise. In a substantial number of cases field sobriety tests tend to indicate individuals are intoxicated when their blood alcohol levels are still below legal limits. A revision of the way this testing is performed may be necessary to prevent wrongful DUI charges.

There are several types of field sobriety tests used, and none has proven infallible in peer-reviewed research. On the contrary, studies often reveal significant problems with these tests. The horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test looks for involuntary eye movements as an individual is told to look at a certain point in space. Even the US Department of Transportation states this test only accurately detects intoxicated people 88 percent of the time. A separate study performed by Maryland law enforcement officers found it was only accurate 79 percent of the time, and about one third of subjects below the legal blood alcohol limit were wrongly identified as intoxicated using this test.

Another common way to detect drunk drivers is with the walk and turn test, or a test involving standing on one foot. The Department of Transportation states these tests are about 79 percent and 83 percent accurate, respectively. However, critics of these methods point out the studies from which these statistics are derived were conducted by highly motivated officers specially trained to administer these tests, and who were being observed by civilian analysts. They point out that in actual roadside situations the detection rate could be much higher, and officers may be simply looking to make arrests, and so will tend to interpret cues in such a way that they will believe people are intoxicated, even if they legally aren't.

Some peer-reviewed studies have been even more critical of these tests. They state these tests are only accurate around two thirds of the time in detecting inebriated individuals, and often lead to false positives in assessing sober subjects. These studies found that only rarely were people who hadn't had anything to drink actually judged to be completely sober, even if officers didn't deem them "too drunk to drive."

Even field sobriety tests using breathalyzers aren't always accurate. The Department of Transportation has stated these devices accurately detect blood alcohol content about 91 percent of the time. Accordingly, all else being equal breathalyzer detections will be incorrect almost one time in ten. Moreover, depending on the skill of officers in administering other field sobriety tests and properly gauging subjects' responses, individuals could still easily be wrongly arrested for DUIs. When the only completely reliable determination of blood alcohol content is a blood test, being exonerated after the fact is impossible.

The tests currently used to evaluate sobriety in the field have unacceptably high false positive rates, and don't always detect intoxicated individuals consistently enough to be considered reliable. Often officers' own motivations, experiences, and beliefs regarding the people they're testing will lead to arrests more than testing does. Until more accurate field tests of blood alcohol levels are available, the results of these tests should always be supplemented by actual blood testing in order to absolutely prove someone has been drinking and driving.

Continue reading "Are Field Sobriety Tests Reliable in DWI Arrests? Several Studies Question FST Reliability " »

Have you ever been too drunk to drive and you realized it while you were driving and you wondered what should I do? You should pull over immediately and turn off the car, take the keys out of the ignition, and get out of the car as soon as possible. See St Louis Criminal Law Blog Article: "What Constitutes "Operating a Motor Vehicle" under Missouri DWI Law?" This is your best chance of avoiding a DWI if a police officer comes upon you. The Missouri Court of Appeals in the Western District ruled in State v Hatfield, that the State must establish the temporal connection between the defendant's last operation of a motor vehicle and his observed illegal intoxication. Basically, just because you are standing next on the side of the road and you drove does not necessarily mean that you are guilty of DWI. The State must show that you were intoxicated at the time of vehicle operation.

Specifically in the drunk driving related case of State v. Hatfield, the Cass County Sheriff's Department was dispatched to an accident and the Deputy found Billy Hatfield standing next to a car that was involved in an motor vehicle accident. The car had damage to the front end, there were ruts in a ditch next to the vehicle, and a damaged fence nearby. Billy Hatfield told the officer that "I lost it making the turn." The Deputy reported that he smelled a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, he had slurred speech and was having trouble with his balance. The Deputy placed Billy Hatfield under arrest for DWI and driving on a revoked license. Hatfield refused to take the field sobriety tests and refused to provide a breath sample. Billy Hatfield took his case to trial and was convicted of DWI. The sole witness at trial was the deputy. Billy Hatfield appealed his conviction on the basis that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of DWI because the State failed to establish that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time he was operating a motor vehicle.

To convict a person of DWI in the state of Missouri the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was (1) driving (2) while (3) intoxicated. See Missouri Revised Statute 577.010. Billy Hatfield did not dispute that he was driving or that he was intoxicated. He disputed that he was doing both of them at the same time. The state argued on appeal that there was circumstantial evidence to infer that Billy Hatfield was impaired while driving. They referred to his admission to driving and his personal appearance of slurred speech, glassy watery eyes, slight sway, odor of alcohol and a little stumbling while he walked. The Court did not believe that the State had met their burden in this case. The court stated that Hatfield's mere intoxication near his vehicle, without evidence establishing when he last operated it, is insufficient to support his conviction for DWI. The Court relied on previous cases to make it clear that the State must present evidence linking in time the defendant's intoxication to the operation of a motor vehicle. Specifically in State v. Davis, 217 S.W.3d 358, 361 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) Where intoxication is observed at a time separate from the operation of a motor vehicle, a fact-finder cannot determine that one who is under the influence of an alcoholic beverage at an established time was necessarily in that condition at some earlier unspecified moment without any evidence concerning the length of the interval involved.
For an in depth discussion see State v. Byron, 222 S.W.3d, 341 (Mo.App.W.D.2007) State v. Liebhart, 707 S.W.2d 427, 429 (Mo. App.W.D. 1986)

The Court in this case made it clear that the State failed to establish that Billy Hatfield was intoxicated when he was driving. There was no evidence as to the approximate time that Hatfield was operating the vehicle or the time of the accident occurred or how much time had elapsed between the accident and the arrest. The Court even pointed out how poorly the police officer investigated the case. The Court finished their opinion with strong words for the state by stating "it is the obligation of the State to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not the function of the court to ignore its failure." See State v. Wilson.

Continue reading "Missouri DWI Defense Tactic: State Must Prove Temporal Connection Between Time Car was Driven and Intoxication" »

GUEST AUTHOR ARTICLE: not affiliated with St Louis law firm of Sansone / Lauber:

If you have been unfortunate enough to be caught and arrested for drunk driving, you must be weighing the pros and cons of hiring a DUI lawyer. Some people think that they do not need to hire a lawyer and they can represent themselves in court. Others think it is not a good idea to spend thousands of dollars on hiring a lawyer when they will eventually have to pay court fee and other DUI fines if they are proven guilty. However, as a first time DUI convict, you must understand that hiring a DUI lawyer to represent you in court should be your first priority. This is because as a layman, you will be unaware of how to deal with the situation in court and you will also not be aware of the local DUI laws, and what actions you must take to defend yourself. If you do not get professional consult, then you must prepare yourself to face the consequences of a DUI conviction, which can be severe in most states and will haunt you for the rest of your life, not to mention, leaving a permanent criminal mark on your record. So before you make the decision of whether or not to hire a DUI lawyer, you must ask some questions to yourself:

Are you aware of your Rights?

As a citizen of the state, you must be aware of your rights and the officer on duty who arrested you should tell you about your rights at the time of arrest. You may also not be sure whether you can refuse a breath test and other field sobriety tests, if the police officer asks you to take them. If you are not aware of your rights, and in the case you are arrested, you may be taken advantage of.

Are you aware of the local DUI laws?

You may also not be aware of the local laws and what you need to do in order to get your driving license back if it is suspended. The local laws include penalties and fines which will be imposed on you if you are proven guilty and the consequences also include spending time in jail, probation or serving community service hours, installation of an ignition interlock device and so on.

An experienced lawyer at you side can make a big difference by fighting for you at every step of the way. Your lawyer will take every possible measure to make sure that the charges against you are reduced as much as possible if not removed completely. They will also make sure that the fines are reduced and if the court orders any punishment, it is also minimized.

However, if you do not have a lawyer at your side, you will not be sure how to go about handling your case. You will not be aware of the deadlines which you have to meet in order to save your driving privileges. Similarly, you will not know what actions of the police officer on duty can be questioned in court and used in your favour.

Author Bio

Richard Jacobs is a chief editor since early 2007, and he currently works for MyDUIattorney. A website that helps you to find the right DUI lawyer, you can search for a Maryland DUI Attorney, and Arizona DUI Lawyer online, anytime! Top St Louis Missouri DWI Lawyer

As a St Louis attorney that handles DWI cases on a daily basis, I am constantly asked questions by clients, friends and family about how to avoid a DWI arrest. They all seem to think that if they have had too much to drink,and they realize it while they are driving that they should pull over and sleep it off, a situation I see often in my criminal law practice. In theory this seems to make sense except that most people forget one important thing, turn off the car and remove the keys from the ignition!. In Missouri, "A person commits the crime of 'driving while intoxicated' if he operates a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition. See Missouri Revised Statute 577.010.1

"Operates" is defined by statute as "physically driving or operating a motor vehicle." Missouri Revised Statute 577.001.2. If the keys are in the ignition and the car is running you are operating a motor vehicle. The Missouri Court of Appeals confirmed this again in State v. Wilson (full opinion here) a decision recently handed down on July 12, 2011.

Prior to a DWI arrest, in May 2009, Barbara Lehmen saw a truck pull up in front of her house in Gasconade County Missouri. She observed a person inside the truck moving around but was unable to see who it was. The police arrived about 30 minutes later. The chief of police walked up to the truck and saw James Wilson reclined in the driver's seat of the truck asleep. Wilson's speech was slurred and he appeared to be disoriented and the police officer reached in and turned off the engine, as the truck was still running. The police ten reported that Wilson was unsteady on his feet, swaying and stumbling. He submitted to a breath sample and blew a BAC of 0.273%. At his criminal DWI trial, James Wilson was found guilty, his criminal defense attorney appealed the guilty verdict arguing that there was insufficient evidence to prove he was operating the vehicle as required by sections 577.001 and 577.010 of the Missouri Revised Statutes.

James Wilson's main argument is that the evidence did not show he was physically driving or operating a motor vehicle and that he was just sleeping in a parked truck. The Court disagreed relying on Cox v. Director of Revenue, 98 S.W.3d 548, 550-551 (Mo. Banc 2003). In that drunk driving case the police had probable cause to believe that the Defendant was operating his vehicle where the Defendant was found sleeping in the driver's seat of his car with the keys in the ignition and the engine was running. In the Wilson case, the Court went a step further and stated that the evidence was strong enough to infer that James Wilson drove there drunk as only 30 minutes had passed since he pulled up and the fact that he was incoherent and blew a 0.273% BAC. See State v. Johnston, 670 S.W.2d 552, 557 (Mo.App.S.D. 1984); See State v. Varnell, 316 S.W.3d 510, 518 (Mo.App.W.D. 2010).

The Courts confirmed the State of Missouri's position that if you are in the car and the keys are in the ignition and the car is running you can be convicted of DWI. So, if you find yourself int he position of driving home and realizing you drank too much, pull over, take the keys out of the ignition, and to be even more safe, get out of the drivers seat and sleep it off in the back seat or call someone for a ride.

Continue reading "Asleep at the Wheel: What Constitutes "Operating a Motor Vehicle" under Missouri DWI Law? " »

Our Clayton DWI lawyers applaud the fact that now most St Louis area county courts incorporate the use of alternative forms of punishment for DWI Offenders. Recently, Jefferson County Circuit Court, which is located in Hillsboro Missouri and just south of St. Louis County, was selected to take part in a NHTSA study to determine the best way to use SCRAM devices on repeat DWI offenders. Article: Jefferson County DWI Study

SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring) is an ankle bracelet that is worn by a DWI offender for several months. The braclet monitors the offender's alcohol level 24 hours a day seven days a week; if the repeat DWI offender takes a drink the body sweats the alcohol out through the skin and the braclet will be alerted. The devices are considered to be tamper proof and extremely accurate.

The courts see this device as a safeguard against repeat DWI offenders and as a guarantee that the repeat DUI offender is not drinking. Our Jefferson County DWI attorneys use SCRAM as an alternative to Jail for felony DWI clients in Jefferson County DWI cases.

A few years back, I represented a St Charles man charged with his 2nd Felony DWI, which is a Class C Felony. We got him released with a very low bond but with the condition suggested by our st Louis DUI attorney, Ben Sansone, that SCRAM be used as part of the bond. This worked out great, our client was able to get out on a cheap bond, but more importantly, he wore the SCRAM for a year before trial and it never went off, not once. This showed the court he was serious about kicking his habits and the court allowed probation and NO jail time for a second time Felony offender. This was a great outcome for our client.

Continue reading "Jefferson County Circuit Court takes part in NHTSA Study" »

As an experienced St Louis criminal defense lawyer, my advice is generally not to take a breath test, or "refuse to blow". When a DWI offender is pulled over in Missouri they are faced with a choice: to blow or not to blow. Many times this decision is made based on the consequences. If you blow over the legal limit you are likely to face a suspension of your driver's license for 90 days. If you refuse to blow then you face a revocation of your driver's license for 1 year (which can be challenged, oftentimes successfully). Typically and DUI offender faces either the 90 day suspension or the 1 year revocation but not both. The Missouri Court of Appeals in the Eastern District ruled that a person under arrest in Missouri for DWI can have their license revoked for refusing to submit to a breath test and also suspended for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol content in excess of .08 if the police officer obtains a search warrant after the driver refuses to take the breath test. See Covert v. Director of Revenue, issued on June 21, 2011.

Specifically, the Respondent, Carolyn Covert, was pulled over in Franklin County Missouri for speeding as she passed a semi-truck. The arresting officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol on her breath. She performed poorly on the field sobriety tests and was arrested for Franklin County DWI. She was advised of the Missouri Implied Consent and she refused to take the breath test. She was issued a notice of revocation pursuant to Section 577.041. After she refused to take the test the officer obtained a search warrant to draw her blood. Her results were over the legal limit of .08 and she faced an additional suspension of her driving privileges under Missouri Revised Statutes Sections 302.505 and 302.525. Carolyn Covert filed for an administrative hearing and filed a petition for review to protect her license from being suspended or revoked. She lost the administrative hearing for having a blood alcohol content above .08 and filed for a trial de novo. Her cases were consolidated and the trial court upheld her revocation for refusing to submit to the breath test and ruled her license could not be suspended for having a blood alcohol concentration above .08. The trial court found that since she refused the breath test the results from the blood draw were inadmissible for purposes of the the suspension hearing. The Director of Revenue appealed. The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court misinterpreted the meaning of Sections 577.037 and 577.041 and ruled that the chemical test was properly administered since it was properly administered under Section 577.041 its results were admissible in a civil proceeding to suspend the driver's license.

The ruling of the Court can have a great impact on people in this particular situation. If the DWI offender loses both the Administrative Hearing and Petition for Review their driving history will show a suspension and revocation. Both will show up permanently on the person's driving record for all future employers and car insurance companies to see. The appearance for both the suspension and revocation will make it appear as if a person has two different alcohol related incidents.

Continue reading "Missouri Court of Appeals Upholds Revocation and Suspension of DWI Offender's License From the Same Incident" »

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" »

Our firm represented a repeat DWI client for a Jefferson County DWI. The client was stopped by the police because they were unresponsive and blocking traffic. The alleged drunk driver was arrested and refused to take the breathalyzer.

Under Missouri Law, if you refuse to take a breath test you will lose your driving privileges for one year. Our Jefferson County DWI Lawyers filed a Petition for Review that prevented the Missouri Department of Revenue from taking our client's driver's license. The Petition for Review was set for trial three times with the Department of Revenue failing to produce key evidence in the case. The Judge found in favor of our client and the Refusal to Submit to a breath Test was taken off of the client's driving history.

If you have a DWI Refusal case in Jefferson County contact one of our Jefferson County DWI lawyers for a free consultation.

St Louis DWI attorneys successfully argued that the Police lacked probable cause for Defendant's arrest and that there was insufficient evidence to support a Missouri DWI charge. The police failed to properly conduct the Field Sobriety Tests in compliance with NHTSA (National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration) guidelines as required by law and therefore lacked probable cause to arrest defendant. The drunk driving charges and case were dismissed.

Proper Administration of the Walk and Turn Test:

If you have been unfortunate enough to be caught and arrested for St Louis drunk driving , you must be weighing the pros and cons of hiring a DUI lawyer. Some people think that they do not need to hire a lawyer and they can represent themselves in court. Others think it is not a good idea to spend thousands of dollars on hiring a lawyer when they will eventually have to pay court fee and other DUI fines if they are proven guilty. However, as a first time DUI offender, you must understand that hiring a DUI lawyer to represent you in court should be your first priority. This is because as a layman, you will be unaware of how to deal with the situation in court and you will also not be aware of the local DUI laws, and what actions you must take to defend yourself. If you do not get professional consult, then you must prepare yourself to face the consequences of a DUI conviction, which can be severe in most states and will haunt you for the rest of your life, not to mention, leaving a permanent criminal mark on your record. So before you make the decision of whether or not to hire a DUI lawyer, you must ask some questions to yourself:

Are you aware of your Rights?

As a citizen of the state, you must be aware of your rights and the officer on duty who arrested you should tell you about your rights at the time of arrest. You may also not be sure whether you can refuse a breath test and other field sobriety tests, if the police officer asks you to take them. If you are not aware of your rights, and in the case you are arrested, you may be taken advantage of.

Are you aware of the local DUI laws?

You may also not be aware of the local laws and what you need to do in order to get your driving license back if it is suspended. The local laws include penalties and fines which will be imposed on you if you are proven guilty and the consequences also include spending time in jail, probation or serving community service hours, installation of an ignition interlock device and so on.

An experienced lawyer at you side can make a big difference by fighting for you at every step of the way. Your Missouri DWI lawyer will take every possible measure to make sure that the charges against you are reduced as much as possible if not removed completely. They will also make sure that the fines are reduced and if the court orders any punishment, it is also minimized.

However, if you do not have a lawyer at your side, you will not be sure how to go about handling your case. You will not be aware of the deadlines which you have to meet in order to save your driving privileges. Similarly, you will not know what actions of the police officer on duty can be questioned in court and used in your favor.

Author Bio

Richard Jacobs is a chief editor since early 2007, and he currently works for MyDUIattorney. A website that helps you to find the right DUI lawyer, you can search for a Maryland DUI Attorney or for Arizona DUI Lawyer online, anytime!