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

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Nick was pulled over after leaving a bar in Jefferson County and then running a red light. The Police asked the client to take part in three field sobriety tests. He took the Gaze Nystagmus, Walk and Turn and one Legged Stand Test. The Missouri standardized field sobriety tests were done on the side of the road and were recorded by the Police on their police vehicle dash video camera.

Clayton Drunk driving defense lawyer, Gary J. Lauber, was successful in arguing that the driver passed the field sobriety tests and that the police did not have probable cause to have him take the breathalyzer. The Jefferson County Prosecuting attorney confessed the Refusal and restored Nick's full driving privileges.

Proper Administration of the Walk and Turn Test:

Defendant arrested after colliding with a concrete support for a light post in a Target parking lot. Our St Charles DWI lawyer defended the case based on police officer's failure to properly establish intoxication by field sobriety tests and observations. Additionally, procedural errors were made by the arresting officer leading to a successful defense and dismissal of the Missouri DWI charge.