Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

Everyone knows that prime time for police to make arrests regarding drunk drivers are nights and weekends. It would come as no surprise to most people to hear that late night on a Friday would understandably be a busy time for suspected drunk driving arrests. What many people may not realize is that police have become increasingly concerned about daytime drunk drivers and the danger they pose to the unsuspecting public.

There are have been several articles in newspapers across the country recently about a push by officers to alert the public to the danger presented by impaired drivers during daylight. One article appeared in Washington State where officers say they have noticed a trend of more and more intoxicated drivers moving around during daylight. According to statistics released by the Washington State Highway Patrol, troopers made 2,800 DUI arrests between 6 in the morning and 6 at night in 2012. So far this year the department says it is on track to hit or exceed the numbers from last year, with 654 arrests between January and March that all occurred during the day.

The increasing tendency for drunk driving arrests to occur during daylight means that in Washington State one out of every eight DUI stops is now made during the day. This has officers worried and eager to crack down because daytime drunk driving can be especially dangerous due to the increased crowds out and about during working hours. At night the roads are much less crowded and there are thus fewer opportunities for impaired drivers to be involved in accidents.

Officers in Washington have said they are beginning aggressive emphasis patrols to try and reduce high daytime drunk driving numbers, much like the patrols that sometimes happen around busy holidays. Experts agree that daytime drunk drivers come from one of two groups: chronic alcoholics who rarely if ever stop drinking, and most often, those who had too much to drink the night before and don't realize that they are still impaired.

Officers that are looking for daytime drunk drivers often have to employ different strategies than are used at night. In the evening, cops just watch for weaving and other erratic driving behavior. During the day these same actions do not create the same kind of alarm given that few people expect others to be drunk so early. Instead, officers that seek out to catch drunk drivers make sure to focus their morning shifts on busy restaurant and bar districts. Officers watch to see if anyone has fallen asleep in their vehicles and also check to see if people are arriving back at the bars to pick up cars they left the night before. While this may seem like the responsible thing to do, cops say its often the case that drivers underestimate how long it takes to sober up and that the motorists are still intoxicated in the morning when they arrive to take their car home.

Police departments across the country have said they need the public's help to combat daytime drunk drivers. Because most people don't associate erratic daytime driving with drunkenness, few people would ever think to call 911 when they see someone drifting out of their lane during daytime hours. Police say they hope to change that perception given that nearly 30% of all DUI arrests result from calls from the public.

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: "Wash. State Patrol: One of every eight DUI stops is made during daytime," by Lee Stoll, published at KIROTV.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Is Driving On Drugs The Same As Driving Drunk in Missouri?
Missouri Measure Makes Refusing To Submit To Breath Test A Crime

Everyone knows that DWI laws make it illegal to drive while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. There's a very clear line for measuring how much alcohol drivers are permitted to have in their system before they are deemed legally intoxicated, 0.08 percent. Something that would surprise many people in Missouri is that, in the state, you can be charged with Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) if your driving is impaired, regardless of the amount of drugs found in your system at the time of your arrest. No such clear line exists.

According to Section 577.010 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, a driver is considered guilty of driving while intoxicated if he or she drives while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The legal limit for a DWI for alcohol is 0.08, but for drugs, no specific limit exists. Instead, any amount of drugs that impairs your driving is enough for a DUID conviction.

The potential penalties for a DUID conviction are exactly the same as they are for a standard DWI in Missouri. The law says that those convicted of either crime are eligible for up to six months in prison and can be ordered to pay a fine of up to $500. Both crimes also involve the loss of driving privileges. Interestingly if you enter a plea of guilty to driving under the influence of drugs you most likely will lose your license for one year under Missouri Abuse and Lose Law.

What's so maddening about the Missouri law is that it is so arbitrary, making no attempt to define what actually is dangerous, impaired driving. It's possible that in Missouri a driver may have smoked marijuana a week before being pulled over and had a couple of beers but be under the legal limit of 0.08, but under this law he can be charged for DWI because he will likely test positive for the metabolite of THC (this is what THC becomes as it is broken down in the body). The same thing goes with other drugs as labs in the state are designed to detect drug metabolites, not the drugs themselves. Prosecutors typically don't take the time or have the knowledge to properly interpret the lab results properly. Typically if a person is charged with Driving Under the Influence of Drugs they will need to hire a toxicologist or other experts to help in their defense.

The only good thing to say about the law is that it has one caveat that prevents it from being applied too broadly by police officers. Officers in Missouri still have to have probable cause to believe that a driver was operating a vehicle under the influence before they can ask you to take a test to determine your 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: "Missouri Drugged Driving," published at NORML.org.

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?

Missouri State Representative Don Phillips recently proposed a potentially important bit of legislation, which, if enacted, could seriously change existing Missouri DUI law. The legislation, known as House Bill No. 461, says that those who refuse to submit to a chemical test will now be charged with a crime. Specifically, the bill states that those who refuse to submit to a chemical test (including blood or breath tests) will be charged with tampering with evidence. This charge is a Class A misdemeanor.

Representative Phillips claims that the basis for the legislation is that the evidence of intoxication exists inside the body of the person suspected of drunk driving and a refusal to submit to a chemical test amounts to tampering with that evidence. Though the measure was first proposed during last year's legislative session, it failed to get much traction. Phillips says that this year the reception is different and the bill has already made its way through its first and second legislative hearings and is waiting on being assigned to a House committee before moving forward.

Currently, Missouri state law says that those who have been arrested for drunk driving who then refuse to submit to a chemical or breath tests to determine the level of blood alcohol concentration may face a revocation of their license. The basis of this yearlong license revocation is found in Missouri's Implied Consent Law. The Implied Consent Law stands for the idea that every driver on Missouri roads has already given consent, by virtue of appearing on the roadways, to a chemical test of their blood alcohol level after being arrested on the reasonable belief that they were intoxicated while driving. Missouri Revised Statutes 577.041 deals with the law and is crystal clear that if a license revocation occurs following a driver's refusal to submit to a breath or blood test, that person's only option is to petition for a hearing before a circuit division of the court in the county in which the arrest took place.

If the new legislation should come to pass then those pulled over for drunk driving who later refuse to submit to a chemical test of their blood to determine their level of intoxication will now face an additional criminal charge on top of their license revocation. The charge comes with potentially serious punishment; according to Missouri Revised Statutes 558.011, a Class A misdemeanor can include a prison term not to exceed one year. Class A misdemeanors are also punishable with fines of up to $1,000.

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 Bill Would Make Refusing to Take a Breathalyzer a Crime," published at OzarksFirst.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Penalties for DWI/DUI in Missouri
Will Missouri move towards mandatory ignition interlock devices for DWI offenders?

In Missouri, if you've been pulled over for drinking and driving you may not realize that there are other options besides receiving a standard DWI conviction. One such option, assuming it is your first offense, is to try and negotiate a Suspended Imposition of Sentence (SIS).

A SIS is a way of pleading guilty to a charge without having a sentence imposed on you. This means you are admitting guilt to the DUI without being formally convicted. Generally, a SIS is an agreement between the defendant and the prosecutor in which the defendant agrees to accept responsibility for the crime, agrees not to violate any laws for up to two years, not to drink alcohol for some period of time (usually one or two years), not to go to establishments that serve alcohol, with the exception of restaurants and some sporting events, and to take random urine samples to insure compliance.

Though everything sounds wonderful, there are some catches. The big caveat to the SIS is that once you negotiate a deal, you agree to a period of probation. If, during that time, you violate any of the terms of your probation then the full sentence can be imposed. If, on the other hand, you successfully complete your probation, the sentence will never be imposed and you will have no points placed on your driving record and you will not have a conviction on your record for employment purposes.

Those who plead guilty and negotiate a SIS typically have special conditions of probation such as taking the Substance Abuse Traffic Offender's Program (SATOP), attending a victim impact panel, engaging in community service, and paying the cost of overtime for your arrest to the police department.

It's important to note that a SIS is considered a prior alcohol plea in the event that the person receives a second DWI within 5 years of the original offense. That means, rather than receive punishments as if it were your first conviction; you will receive elevated penalties as if your original SIS were a first DWI conviction. A SIS will typically be denied to anyone who had a prior conviction or diversion on their record as well as anyone who is found to have over 0.20 BAC when they are arrested.

It is important to understand that there are many advantages to an SIS plea in the State of Missouri and there are also some potential serious consequences. Any person who is considering entering a plea of guilty to a DWI should consult with an experienced attorney who can explain all of the potential ramifications of a DWI plea and the effect it will have on their driver's license and employment status.

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

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 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?

The Supreme Court gave word last week that it would hear a case that concerned the power of police officers to give involuntary blood tests to those arrested on suspicion of drunk driving. The case could be an important one given that it will impact the reading of the Fourth Amendment protections regarding search and seizures and their relationship to forced blood tests.

The case name is Missouri v. McNeely and began as a traffic stop back in 2010. The officer pulled the man, Tyler McNeely, over early in the morning for a routine speeding violation when the officer began to suspect that McNeely was intoxicated. The officer requested that McNeely perform several field sobriety tests which he failed. McNeely then refused to submit to a blood alcohol test after being asked by the officer. After refusing, McNeely was taken to a clinic where the officer ordered a medical technician to draw his blood without his consent. The test results showed that he was indeed intoxicated.

Before trial, McNeely's lawyer attempted to suppress the involuntarily taken blood sample, saying that the arresting officer never received a search warrant authorizing the seizure. The prosecution vehemently disagreed, and said that the officer was authorized to take the test immediately because had he failed to do so the alcohol in McNeely's system would have diminished quickly as it was metabolized.

The lower court judge sided with the defense attorney and ordered the suppression of the blood test. This decision was reversed by a state appeals court and then reversed again by the Missouri Supreme Court which affirmed the decision of the lower court. The Missouri Supreme Court said that the officer was within his right to order the blood test given the exigent circumstances of the rapidly diminishing alcohol.

Others have argued that the circumstances do not truly rise to the level of emergency, there was no terrible accident, no crime scene was in danger of destruction. State courts from across the country are split on the issue, with some saying special circumstances are needed to raise the situation to the level justifying a warrantless search. The High Court will weigh in and clarify the important issue sometime early next year.

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: "Supreme Court to hear dispute over warrantless blood test for drunken driving suspect," by The Denver Post, published at www.denverpost.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Will Missouri move towards mandatory ignition interlock devices for DWI offenders?
Missouri Court Says Initial Refusal Not Enough To Justify License Revocation