Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

Driving on a suspended or revoked license in Missouri is no small matter and can lead to big fines, huge increases in insurance premium payments, increased suspension or revocation times, and in certain cases, even jail time.

First things first, a person's driver's license could be suspended or revoked for a wide array of reasons. Things like failure to pay child support, DWI conviction or failure to appear for a court hearing are all reasons why a driver in Missouri could have their license suspended or revoked. The Missouri Department of Revenue is also able to suspend a person's driver's license, sometimes for refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test, though often the suspension is due to the accumulation of too many points on his or her driving record.

The rules in Missouri say that if a driver accumulates eight points on his or her license within 18 months then that driver's license will be suspended for a period of 30 days. If a driver accumulates 12 points over 12 months, 18 points in 24 months or 24 points in 36 months, your license will be revoked for a period of one year. This is why it is important to contact an attorney anytime that you receive a moving violation. Typically if you hire an attorney they will be able to fix the ticket and get it amended to a no point violation.

In Missouri, if you are convicted of driving on a suspended or revoked license, the offense can qualify as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances of your case. Those drivers who have their first offense for driving on a suspended or revoked license face Class A misdemeanor charges. According to Section 302.321 of Missouri Revised Statutes, a conviction for a Class A misdemeanor for a first conviction will result in a fine of up to $300.00 dollars. Those with a second or third similar violation can expect a possible year in jail as well as a fine of up to $1,000.

Missouri statutes go on to say that those drivers with four or more prior convictions for driving on suspended or revoked licenses or with previous drunk driving convictions will face Class D felony charges. A Class D felony conviction can result in a jail term of up to four years, serious time for what many do not consider to be a serious crime.

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

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

A recent article in the New York Times discussed a crucially important case before the Supreme Court and how the ruling could impact how police officers and judges carry out their jobs across the country and here in Missouri. The issue is essential to the criminal justice process and was even described by one of the Justices as "the most important criminal procedure case" heard in decades.

The case is about a Maryland man, Alonzo Jay King, who was arrested for assault in 2009. A sample of the man's DNA was taken by police officers when he was arrested but before King was ever convicted of anything. The sample was run in a state database and eventually matched to a rape that happened several years earlier. King was charged with that rape and eventually convicted. The case was appealed and the Maryland Court of Appeals found that the decision to take DNA from a suspect who had been arrested, but not yet convicted of doing anything, violated the Constitution.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on the case late last month and several pointed out that while the practice of taking DNA samples from recently arrested suspects might help law enforcement, that does not mean that it will past Constitutional muster. Justice Ginsburg agreed during oral argument that taking DNA from a person prior to a conviction might run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, which says that police must secure a warrant before they can conduct a search.

The issue before the court was not about DNA collection in general, instead it was only about whether law enforcement agencies had the right to collect DNA from suspects who had not yet been convicted of a crime. Though the Maryland law at issue in the King case limits collection to only those arrested for "serious" crimes, Justice Roberts aptly pointed out that nothing stopped the legislature from abolishing that caveat and extending the DNA collection practice to all crimes, potentially even traffic violations. Questions were also raised on the other side of the argument about how much privacy suspects could claim they were entitled too when DNA is so easily accessed, even taking a sip of water can provide a wealth of information.

The justices spent most of their time discussing whether DNA is simply a high tech version of fingerprinting suspects, something that is done prior to a criminal conviction all the time. However, opponents of the law argued that fingerprinting is different because fingerprints are only used to identify suspects while DNA is being used to help solve closed cases.

The case is important not only for what happens in Maryland, but because here in Missouri we have a similar law on the books. Specifically, Section 650.055 of the Missouri Revised Statutes says DNA samples are to be collected at the time of arrest for those arrested for committing burglary or other serious felonies. The DNA sampling takes place at the time of an arrest rather than after a plea deal has been reached or a trial has been concluded. The DNA collection is to be taken during "booking" by local law enforcement officials. Under Missouri's previous law, the DNA sample was only collected after a conviction was secured. This ensured that a case had made its way through the criminal justice system before a suspect had their DNA taken and analyzed.

Criminal defense attorneys who worry about similar DNA practice spreading to other states are watching the case closely. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in June.

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

Source: "Justices Wrestle Over Allowing DNA Sampling at Time of Arrest," by Adam Liptak, published at NYTimes.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Changes Proposed to Missouri Criminal Statutes
Recent St. Louis Crime Wave Targets Old Clunkers

In an important ruling that could possibly spell the end for Missouri speeding cameras, a judge in St. Louis County ruled that the speed camera tickets issued by Moline Acres conflict with state law. The judge's ruling could be important because it could sway other judges who are presented with the question of ruling on the validity of a speed camera ticket.

Experts believe the case, involving a speeding ticket for local radio host Charlie Brennan, may be the first of its kind. Brennan was ticketed for going 56 miles per hour in a 40 miles per hour zone while driving along Highway 367. Brennan's attorney appealed the ticket, arguing that Moline Acres lacked the necessary authority to dispense such tickets for an offense that has already been prohibited by state law.

While other challenges have been brought regarding red light camera tickets, this may be the first to challenge the speeding cameras. Some think the ruling indicates that speed cameras could be on shaky legal ground and might become significantly easier to challenge in the future.

St. Louis County Associate Circuit Judge Mary Bruntrager Schroeder sided with Brennan and his attorney in the dispute, writing that speed cameras are different than red light cameras which have been allowed under certain circumstances. Those circumstances include only those cases where red light cameras issue tickets that are treated as civil offenses, not criminal acts. For instance, a city that cites a vehicle for driving through a red light, not the driver, avoids making the offense a moving violation, which is already governed by state law.

Judge Schroeder pointed out the flaw in trying to have speed cameras follow the same path: by virtue of the act itself, speeding citations involve moving violations. Judge Schroeder wrote that, "It would seem impossible and a violation of the laws of physics to have speed without motion."

The decision is an important one because at least 13 cities in St. Louis County currently use speed cameras. Though the ruling does not have enough force to automatically invalidate that usage, it does leave many wondering what kind of justification those municipalities will come up with to avoid having their speed camera tickets thrown out of court in the future.

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

Source: "St. Louis County Judge Throws Out Speeding Camera Ticket," by Allison Blood, published at StLouis.CBSLocal.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Metal Scrap Theft Ring Targeting St. Louis Trash Bins
Two UMSL Students Arrested for Library Book Theft

In a recent bit of news unlikely to be trumpeted by the state's tourism office, Missouri earned the sad distinction of being home to the most meth labs of any state in the country in 2012. The statistics are compiled each year by the federal Drug Enforcement Agency which monitors the number of meth incidents that occur across the country. Sadly, this isn't the first time Missouri has come in at number one.

The figures from 2012 reveal another big year for meth manufacturing in Missouri. The data shows that when broken down by county, Jefferson County, MO actually has the second greatest number of meth labs out of all the counties in the United States. Missouri as a whole was found to have 1,825 meth labs in 2012. That's actually down from the record breaking 2,075 meth labs discovered in 2011, but hardly a sign of tremendous law enforcement success.

According to data on a county-by-county basis, Jefferson County came in second with 472 meth lab busts in 2012. Not far behind was St. Charles County, MO, which saw 311 meth incidents in 2012, enough to place fifth in the country. St. Francois, Jasper, Greene, Jackson, Franklin and St. Louis counties each had more than 100 incidents apiece. Though these numbers are enormous, Tulsa, Oklahoma was the clear leader, with a total of 979 separate meth incidents last year.

In Missouri it is illegal to possess, sell, make or attempt to make meth, though the law says that it is more serious to sell meth near a school or within a motel or vehicle. Chapter 195 of Missouri Revised Statutes deals with drug regulations and it says that possession of methamphetamine is classified as a Class C Felony, carrying up to 7 years in prison and fines reaching $5,000.

Beyond making and possessing actual methamphetamine, Missouri law also limits the amount of meth precursor chemicals (such as pseudoephedrine) a person is allowed to possess. Missouri law says that individuals are permitted to buy up to 9 grams of pseudoephedrine every 30 days. That equals roughly two 15-dose boxes of Claritin D. It is illegal in Missouri to possess any methamphetamine precursor substance with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. Having only 24 grams of pseudoephedrine in your house can be enough to violate state law.

A Missouri methamphetamine possession charge has the potential to seriously damage your life. It doesn't matter if this is your first time using the drug or if you have a history of problems, either way, you could face severe legal penalties. Our Firm has extensive experience handling methamphetamine cases in Missouri state courts and in the Federal District Court of Eastern District of Missouri.

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

Source: "Missouri Leads the Nation in Meth Labs (Again), Jefferson County Second Highest In Country," by Jessica Lussenhop, published at RiverFrontTimes.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Meth Making Lands Man Behind Bars
East St. Louis Convenience Store Pled Guilty to Charges Involving the Sale of Illegal Drugs

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?

It's been several decades since the last update was done to Missouri's criminal statutes but it looks like the public won't have to wait much longer for changes to be implemented. A substantial overhaul of the state's existing criminal justice system is planned by legislators who recently floated a new bill before the General Assembly that would make several important changes.

The bill currently before members of the Missouri House was drafted with significant input from a committee that had been formed years ago by the Missouri Bar to study the state's existing laws and recommend much needed changes.

The committee spent four years batting around ideas and coming up with the final draft language that has just been released to legislators and the public alike. The committee spent time combing through the state's statutes, recommending changes and tweaks as the case may be. Changes were proposed to a wide variety of individual offenses, ranging from littering to domestic assaults.

One of the biggest changes contained in the legislation, known as House Bill No. 210, is the addition of a new class of felony. Currently, Missouri Revised Statutes 557.016 lists four classes of felonies in Missouri: A, B, C and D. The new legislation would add a fifth, Class E, to the list. The goal is to close some of the currently large gaps in the existing four categories. A good example of the problem is found in Missouri Revised Statutes 558.011 which says Class C felonies carry a maximum prison term of seven years, while class B felonies come with between five and 15 years behind bars. To help make the transition between these felony gradations less jarring, the bill proposes creating a Class E which would allow for a better distribution of sentencing times.

Class E felonies would require a prison term not to exceed four years. This would mean that Class C would change to a term of between three and ten years while Class D felonies would not exceed seven years in prison. Additionally, misdemeanors would also be given a new category, Class D, for similar gap-closing reasons.

Though there were many changes contained in the new legislation, it did not contain all of the recommendations of the committee formed by the Missouri Bar to study the criminal code. One suggestion that the committee agreed should be included in the legislation, but which was ultimately left out is that those arrested for first time possession of marijuana should only be subject to a fine.

This would change existing state law which allows for the possibility of jail time. The committee hoped that such a change would reduce the heavy burden on state jails by directing such low risk criminals away from the penal system and instead subjecting them only to fines. It would also help alleviate pressure on the overstretched public defender system given that individuals not facing jail time would no longer be entitled to a public defender's help. Sadly, the existing laws will stay in place which means that those arrested for first time marijuana possession in Missouri will be charged with a Class A misdemeanor, a crime which is punishable with up to a year in jail.

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

Source: "Missouri's Criminal Code May Soon See New Class of Felony, Misdemeanor," by Jennifer Davidson, published at KSMU.org.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
St. Louis police off to a violent start to the year as use-of-force increases
St. Louis City Judges Raise Bail in Gun Cases and St. Louis City Homicides Drop

According to a recent article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, a rash of older vehicle car thefts has occurred in the city over the past several months. The reason, surprising as it may be, might be found in a recent change to Missouri law.

The newspaper report traces the recent rise in older model car thefts to a change that took place in Missouri statutes back in August of 2012. The revised law made it easier for car thieves to cell certain cars for scrap. Specifically, the law makes it easier to sell nonfunctioning cars that are 10 years old or older for scrap. The measure, known as House Bill No. 1150, says that those seeking to sell the cars for scrap do not need to have a valid title to do so. Prior to passage of the measure, the only cars that could be sold for scrap in Missouri without proper title were those that were more than 20 years old.

Critics of the measure say that by continually strengthening laws against scraping other metal, especially copper, the newly relaxed car scrap legislation has served as an invitation for petty thieves to focus their energies on old vehicles they can easily flip for several hundred dollars profit. The legislator who pushed the bill through the General Assembly, Representative Kevin Engler, says that the change was never intended to cause a spike in old car thefts. Instead, the measure was meant to allow those living in rural areas to sell their dilapidated cars more easily. The hope was that people could more easily clean up their property and get a little cash in the process.

Police say that while the matter may not seem like such a big deal, after all, who is really concerned about the disappearance of broken down clunkers, the thefts actually spell other trouble for residents of Missouri. For one thing, insurance rates depend, at least in part, on the rate of vehicle theft. There's no distinction between thefts of old cars versus late model vehicles and the recent spike in incidents could result in serious across the board increases.

Another issue, according to law enforcement officials, is that the law does not provide enough support to ensure junkyards are actually checking for the necessary photo ID before buying the car or even ensuring that the vehicle is inoperable. HB 1150 contains no requirement that the scrap dealer perform any sort of certification that the vehicle is nonfunctioning; they simply take the word of the person selling it.

Police in St. Louis County have said that they've seen a 37 percent increase in thefts of older-model vehicles since the new law took effect. The recovery rate for stolen vehicles has now fallen below 50%, representing a drop of more than 10% in less than a year.

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

Source: "Car thieves now covet your old junker," by Christine Byers, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Metal Scrap Theft Ring Targeting St. Louis Trash Bins
Class Action Suit Filed Against Officer Who Made Fake DUI Arrests

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

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

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 article discussed a seemingly boring but ultimately important issue that may be raised before the Supreme Court in the coming session: pocket litter. "Pocket litter" is a phrase used in law enforcement circles to refer to items of miscellaneous information carried on a person. This comes into play when a person is arrested or otherwise detained by an officer and they are subject to a search.

When law enforcement officers arrest someone, they conduct a thorough search of the suspect and his or her immediate possessions. This is what is known as a "search incident to arrest." Any and all items found during this search are deemed admissible in Court. During a typical search officers are trained to look for items that might provide useful evidence for the case or that might cause harm to themselves or others. Another use of such searches is to gather information that might provide a clue about other individuals involved in the alleged criminal activity.

Seemingly mundane items found in people's pockets or purses can provide a significant amount of information. Slips of paper with quickly written messages, phone numbers, names, addresses business cards, etc. all make for great leads. Beyond these obvious examples, scraps of paper including receipts, bus passes or airplane tickets also provide valuable information to those seeking to identify a suspected criminal and any possible criminal associates.

One thing that has happened on this front given the technological changes seen recently is that the items that often make up such pocket litter have changed. Originally the term referred only to small scraps of paper generally containing only a relatively small amount of information. Today, the term has grown to include electronic devices such as smartphones, tablets, iPods, and even laptops from which huge amounts of information can be collected. These devices carry voicemails, call and text logs, photos, Internet browser history and even GPS information.

The question facing many appellate courts today is just how far such a search can go when high value electronic pocket litter is involved. Cellphones in particular present a puzzling gray area, as there have been conflicting rulings between various U.S. Circuit Courts. This conflict makes it more likely that the issue will end up before the Supreme Court at some point to help clarify the issue. Judges confronted with such facts often find themselves lost, comparing cellphones to diaries while trying to analogize to prior cases from decades ago that have little if any relevance to the challenges they face today. The Supreme Court should step in and shed light on the issue, hopefully catching the legal system up to recent enormous changes in technology.

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: "Pocket Litter: The Evidence That Criminals Carry," by Scott Stewart, published at RightSideNews.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Meth Making Lands Man Behind Bars
Need to record the police? There's an app for that

It must be true what they say; one man's trash is another man's treasure. Though it may not sound particularly tragic, St. Louis is evidently gripped by an odd crime wave. The number of scrap metal thefts has skyrocketed across the city and thieves have their eyes on one very common piece of scrap: trash bin hooks. Police say that criminals are searching alleys across St. Louis looking for the metal hooks, something that is costing taxpayers thousands of dollars to fix.

The incidents of trash bin hook theft have jumped especially over the last few months. The problem not only costs money to replace the hooks, but also leads to delays collecting garbage, as the dump trucks are unable to latch onto the trashcan to properly empty it. Though the problem might not seem like such a big deal, such metal theft rings have grown enormously in recent years. The bad economy and rising commodities prices have forced many people to consider stealing metal for even the little amount of money it can bring it.

The treasured bit of metal is made up of two triangle-shaped steel plates with two teeth on the ends that are bolted to the sides of the 30,000 trash, yard waste and recycling bins across the city. The arms of the dump trucks grab the hooks and are then able to lift the bins into the truck to empty them. If the hooks are missing the trash will pile up until repairs have been done to attach new hooks.

The director of trash operations in St. Louis says the recent rash of metal thefts have risen enormously. In a typical year about 100 trash bin hooks are stolen. So far this year the number is over 1,100. Police have said they believe a handful of people are responsible for the vast majority of the thefts and they suspect they are moving around the city with specialized tools to remove the bolts connecting the hooks to the bins.

Each hook costs around $50, but the city has saved money by repairing damaged bins with hooks left over from old trash bins that had been removed in recent years. Despite this saving, the city estimates that the thefts cost about $50 per hook in labor. An even more expensive alternative would be to pay a welder to weld the hooks to the sides of the trash bins. Though it would prevent the petty theft, the time and labor involved would be significant.

The police say that the payoff for the criminals is small, but that apparently hasn't worked to deter the crime. Each hook weights 22 pounds and would fetch the thief a little more than $2 at a scrap yard.

In response, the police have begun patrolling alleys, checking surveillance cameras and generally keeping a closer eye on scrap yards to see if they can catch those responsible. A new law was passed in January which some hoped would help with the problem as it required those selling scrap metal to show identification. The ordinance will eventually require scrap dealers to create a database of all transactions which will be made available to police. In the mean time, police will be busy keeping a watchful eye on the city's garbage.

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: "Trash bin hook thefts skyrocketing in St. Louis," by Joel Currier, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
New Missouri Law Will Allow Expungement
Missouri Juveniles in Prison for Murder Prepare for Sentencing Changes

Reports from the University of Missouri-St. Louis reveal that two not-so-esteemed students have been charged with library theft, a felony, after campus police say they stole about 70 books from the student library. Before you get excited thinking the two simply had an insatiable thirst for knowledge, it's important to note that they stole the books so they could later sell them on the Internet.

Larry McCoy, 39, and Danielle Campbell, 28, were charged last week and their bail set at $15,000 each. The scheme came to light when a physics professor at an entirely different university, Western Illinois, called the dean of the library in St. Louis to let them know that he had purchased a book on eBay that appeared to belong to the school. Campus police then launched an investigation which revealed that the book was in fact owned by the school. They then tracked the address of the sender to Campbell and began to close in on the students.

The two stole and ultimately attempted to sell 71 books on eBay. Campbell checked out 32 of the books under her student ID while McCoy checked out the remaining 39. The two were finally cornered by the police and confessed to checking out and then selling all but 15 of the books online.

Police have said that the total value of the stolen books was about $7,100. According to Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 570:

"A person commits the crime of stealing if he or she appropriates property or services of another with the purpose to deprive him or her thereof, either without his or her consent or by means of deceit or coercion."

Police are making the case that's exactly what happened here and the value of the stolen books means that the two face potentially serious trouble. Missouri law stipulates that in any case where the value of the stolen property exceeds $500 but is less than $25,000, a Class C felony has occurred.

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: "University of Missouri-St. Louis students arrested after selling library books on eBay," by Christine Byers, published at STLToday.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Recent incident shows that Missouri bank robbery doesn't pay
St. Louis police off to a violent start to the year as use-of-force increases