Missouri Criminal Lawyers Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A 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

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?

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

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

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

A woman from Jackson County, Missouri who was accused of providing alcohol to a teenage party guest who was later involved in a fatal car crash cannot be prosecuted for the death, according to a recent court ruling.

Circuit Judge Peggy Stevens McGraw referred to Missouri law and prior court decisions as justification for her decision to dismiss the charge of involuntary manslaughter. McGraw wrote that, "While other states have concluded that social hosts may be held liable to third parties for injuries inflicted by an intoxicated person, Missouri has not."

Though she avoided the much more severe felony charge, the woman, Sandra Triebel, still faces misdemeanor charges of supplying alcohol to a minor and allowing a minor to consume alcohol on her property.

Prosecutors argued that Triebel provided alcohol at a Halloween party back in 2009 and knew that the teens, including 19-year-old Kenneth Blake, would be drinking at her home. The boy's blood-alcohol level was discovered to be more than twice Missouri's legal limit after he was involved in a terrible crash that resulted in the death of a 16-year-old passenger of another vehicle. Blake is currently serving a six-year prison sentence after he pled guilty to charges of manslaughter and assault.

The decision by prosecutors was a risky one given that Missouri has seen a long line of cases where charges failed against those who supplied alcohol to drunk drivers. The state typically holds only the drunken drivers responsible for fatal accidents. Prosecutors in this case attempted to show that Triebel was criminally negligent and put events into motion that led directly to the deadly crash.

Judge McGraw disagreed with the prosecution, and instead relied on law in Missouri which specifically says that it is the consumption of alcohol, not the supply of it, that is the proximate cause of any injuries inflicted by a drunk driver. McGraw then wrote, "Therefore, this court is reluctant to find that a social host can be held criminally liable for the actions of the underage drinker without a clear declaration from the legislature."

If you 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: "Mo. judge dismisses manslaughter charge against adult party host in drunken driving case," by The Associated Press, published at TheRepublic.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Officers Crack Down on Boating While Intoxicated in Missouri
Missouri's DWI Driver License Revocation Laws Raise Question of Fairness

The Missouri Highway Patrol and Department of Conservation just announced that they arrested four people over the weekend on suspicion of drunken boating. Law enforcement officials also revealed that five people were arrested on felony drug charges during a special enforcement effort that recently took place on the Niangua River in Dallas and Laclede counties and Table Rock Lake in Stone County. The arrests were the result of an enforcement saturation and sobriety checkpoint on Saturday.

The sweep yielded substantial results, with the highway patrol reporting 13 misdemeanor drug violations, 15 minors in possession violations, one supplying alcohol to a minor violation, eight non-moving summonses and 80 warnings.

Though boating and beer might sound like a normal summer weekend treat, the fact is that Missouri law prohibits boating while intoxicated (BWI). The operation of any vessel while intoxicated due to alcohol or any combination of alcohol, controlled substances, or drugs is illegal in the state and can be punished severely.

Missouri law states that a person is intoxicated if that person has a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08% or more, based upon a chemical analysis of breath, blood, or saliva. Those convicted of boating while intoxicated are guilty of a Class B misdemeanor upon a first conviction. In addition, those convicted will be required to complete and pass an approved boating safety course. After a second conviction, a person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. Three or more BWI convictions will mean that a person will be found guilty of a Class D felony. Finally, if someone is boating while under the influence and causes the death or serious injury of another person, a felony conviction will result.

Just like with driving a vehicle, those operating a boat on Missouri waters are deemed to have consented to be tested for alcohol or drugs if so requested by a law enforcement official. If you refuse to be tested, you will be subject to arrest and punishment. If you are arrested for BWI, you will be searched, handcuffed, taken to jail, photographed, fingerprinted, and bonded.

After that, the case will move forward towards full prosecution at which point you'll need the help of an experienced Missouri DWI attorney. If you 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: "Four drunken boating arrests on Missouri waters," by Robert Cronkleton, published at KansasCity.com.

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

A recent opinion piece by a candidate for Lieutenant Governor contained worrying information about drunk driving arrests in Missouri. Republican candidate Mike Carter said that DWI arrests account for nearly 10% of all arrests in Missouri each year. The problem with this number is that so many of these arrests are unnecessary and result in permanent stains on the reputations of citizens who have not been shown to have been under the influence of anything.

Thousands of people all across the state are facing incredibly harsh consequences for what is only a misdemeanor offense. Many people incorrectly assume that in order to receive a punishment as severe as license revocation, high levels of proof that a person was actually under the influence would need to be shown. This is sadly, incorrect.

Missouri's DWI laws call for the Department of Revenue to automatically revoke a person's driver's license for one year if that person refuses to submit to a breath test. If the person submits to the breath test then they could lose their license for 90 days. This license revocation is handled separately from the criminal changes they may face in the jurisdiction where the arrest took place.

If a person takes a breath test and blows over a .08 BAC they are subject to an administrative hearing. The administrative law cases surprisingly do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt showing that the driver was under the influence. Instead, a police officer only needs to testify that they had reasonable suspicion to believe the person was under the influence. Such cases do not take place in front of a judge or jury; instead, they are handled by a hearing officer for the Missouri Department of Revenue who simultaneously acts as both judge and prosecutor.

These hearing officers wield a tremendous amount of power, all without typical burdens of proof or judicial oversight. Such a revocation can impact a person's ability to find work and attend school and will crop up in background checks for years to come. Such an incident will not soon forgotten either, as a person who has had a license revocation or suspension will have that reflected on their driving record permanently.

Carter is intimately familiar with the unjust process, having been accused of driving while intoxicated in 2009. Carter fought the charge and was found innocent by a jury that only needed nine minutes to deliberate. As an attorney, he understands that not everyone has the ability to successfully fight such charges which is why he's so vocal in his opposition to the laws today.

While Carter and other advocates of change are not in favor of making life easier for those who make the irresponsible decision to drive drunk, he does hope that the laws can be changed to ensure Constitutional due process rights for the state's citizens are secured. If you 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: "Mike Carter Calls on Fellow DWI Recipients Spence and Brunner to Fix Missouri DWI Laws," by, published at SacBee.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
Missouri Enacts New Sentencing Guidelines
Will Missouri move towards mandatory ignition interlock devices for DWI offenders?

/>A recent article on MSNBC.com, asks whether all states should move towards mandatory ignition interlock devices in the case of drunk drivers. Drivers in Connecticut who have been convicted of drunken driving are the latest to face mandatory use of ignition interlock devices. Similar moves by other states have been seen as a sign by some that the nation is moving closer to requiring alcohol detection systems in all vehicles, eventually becoming as ubiquitous as airbags and seatbelts.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving pushed hard for the Connecticut law which took effect on January 1st of this year. The state joins 14 other with ignition-interlock mandates for drivers caught with blood-alcohol content above the legal limit, even for first-time offenders. A similar pilot program recently began in several California counties.

At least 24 other states mandate the Breathalyzer-like locks the most serious drunken drivers including repeat offenders or those caught with alcohol levels of .15 or more. The question is whether Missouri, currently in the latter category, will decide to join other states and push for the ignition interlock devices for even first time offenders

Two years ago a state law went into effect and required repeat DUI offenders to install ignition interlock devices in their vehicles. Since that time, Missouri law enforcement officials now say that the decision is responsible for a significant decrease in drunk driving injuries and fatalities across the state. This indicates that not only will the requirement continue, but its success may be reason enough to move for a stricter rule.

The Missouri Highway Patrol released traffic statistics indicating that drunk driving injuries and fatalities have decreased over the past two years. According to the Patrol, there were 218 drunk driving deaths and 3,823 injuries in 2010. In comparison, there were 262 drunk driving deaths and 4,511 injuries in 2008.

The law was implemented in August of 2009 and requires that second-time DUI offenders install ignition interlocks in their vehicles for six months. The device contains a Breathalyzer which must be blown before a client can start their automobile. If the Breathalyzer detects the presence of alcohol on the driver's breath, the vehicle will not start.

Since the law was enacted, the number of Missouri drivers with an ignition interlock has increased from 1,800 in 2008 to 8,700 in 2010. The convicted offender usually has to pay for the device to be installed and maintained, often at a significant cost. Due to the exceptionally high cost many DUI offenders simply decide to not have the devices installed and give up their driver's license instead. If they refuse to install the ignition interlock device, their license will automatically be suspended for a variable length of time. Approximately 50,000 drivers choose (or are forced into) a suspended license over an ignition interlock.

If you 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: "Drunk Driving Deaths and Injuries Down - Two Years After Ignition Lock Law," Kevin Killeen, published at StLouis.CBSLocal.com.

See Our Related Blog Posts:
College Students, Alcohol, and DWI
Convicted on a DUI? How to Appeal the Ruling

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" »

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" »