Tag Archives: DWI

Chesterfield Municipal Court

April 23, 2014

Chesterfield Traffic Lawyers

St. Louis County – 21st Judicial Circuit
The Chesterfield Traffic Lawyers at PulledOver.com can handle it,

Chesterfield Speeding Ticket Defense

Our Chesterfield traffic lawyers handle Chesterfield speeding ticket defense, where “no points” is the goal.

Chesterfield MIP Defense

Our Chesterfield MIP lawyers handle Minor in Possession defense, where the object is keeping your record clean and your driver license from being suspended or revoked.

Chesterfield DWI Defense

Our Chesterfield DWI attorneys handle drunk driving defense, where your driver license and your freedom are at stake.

Let our Chesterfield Traffic Lawyers start helping you today. Contact Us

Chesterfield Traffic Court Information

This page contains Court information Links for Chesterfield, Missouri.

Chesterfield Municipal Court


Nancy Morr, Court Administrator
690 Chesterfield Parkway West
Chesterfield, MO 63017
(636) 537-4718
(636) 537-4798 (facsimile)
http://www.chesterfield.mo.us

Prosecuting Attorney
Timothy Englemeyer

Judge
Hon. Rick Brunk

Court is held on Tuesday Evenings at 7:00pm approximately 3 times per month.

In 2017, the Municipality of Chesterfield filed over 5,000 tickets. Did you get a ticket in the municipality of Chesterfield? What should you do?

If you received a moving violation you have 3 options:

  1. Pay it
  2. Go to court and try to fight it yourself
  3. Hire an attorney.

If you pay it, there will be points assessed to your license. This can cause your insurance rates to go up and/or cause your license to be suspended. Eight points in 18 months can result in a license suspension.

If you try to fight it yourself, the first time you appear in court, your case will not be heard. You will be required to wait and then stand in front of the judge to plead guilty or not guilty. If you plead not guilty, the judge will set your case for trial and you will have to come back at another date. Taking care of the ticket yourself will result in at least two court appearances taking upwards of an hour a piece. Then if you lose, you will be required to pay the fine anyway.

If you hire an attorney, you will likely avoid the appearance and our goal is to get your moving violation amended to a non-moving violation. We have worked in the Chesterfield Municipal Court for over 10 years. We work with the prosecuting attorney to get your ticket reduced. We then notify you via email and hard copy and all you have to do is mail in your payment. Usually this process requires no appearance in court on your part saving you time and energy. For a free consultation, fill out our easy ticket submission form and one of our attorneys will contact you

Probable cause can be a factual issue to be determined by the trial court

April 23, 2014

In State of Missouri vs. Kathryn Avent, the Western District of Missouri Court of Appeals upheld Defendant’s Motion to Suppress evidence due to lack of probable cause.

In this case arising out of Johnson County, the trial court found that the police officer lacked probable cause to arrest Defendant on the charges of DWI. Any information obtained after the arrest, including the breathalyzer, was deemed to be inadmissible.

Defendant through the trial contested the evidence provided by the officer through cross examination. “Avent cross-examined Corporal Owens, challenging his testimony by inferring bias and partiality, pointing out Corporal Owens selective omission of observations favorable to Avent, and by questioning the evidentiary weight of his observations and the reasonableness of inferences drawn therefrom. Avent obtained admissions by Corporal Owens that his various observations were indicative of the fact alcohol had been consumed but were not indicative of the amount consumed. Avent also elicited an abundance of testimony from Corporal Owens indicative of her not being intoxicated.”

The trial court found on behalf of the Defendant, but made no written findings of fact. The Appellate Court in this situation must assume that the Trial court must have made a judgment as to the credibility of the witnesses in coming to the conclusion regarding lack of probable cause. Therefore, the Trial courts ruling is upheld.

Probable cause to arrest on a DWI is a legal issue when the facts are not contested

April 23, 2014

In Lord vs. The Director of Revenue the trial court in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County found that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest Lord and reinstated her license. This appeal followed. The Appellate Court found that Lord did not dispute the evidence presented by the Director of Revenue, nor did she point out consistencies or question the officer’s credibility.

This made the issue not a factual issue which requires deference to the trial court, but a legal issue which can be determined by the Appellate Court. “The level of proof required to show probable cause is much less than that required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Velluto, 383 S.W.3d at 18. There is no precise test for determining whether probable cause exists. Hinnah v. Dir. of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 616, 621 (Mo. banc 2002). Instead, “[p]robable cause to arrest exists when the arresting officer’s knowledge of the particular facts and circumstances is sufficient to warrant a prudent person’s belief that a suspect has committed an offense.” Id. Whether the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest Lord for driving while intoxicated is therefore “determined by examining the circumstances surrounding the arrest as they appeared to a prudent, cautious, and trained police officer.” Gannon, 411 S.W.3d at 397 (citing Coyle v. Director of Revenue, 88 S.W.3d 887, 893 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002)).”

The Appellate Court determined that the uncontested facts provided enough of a legal basis for probable cause. The case was remanded to St. Louis County on the issue of probable cause. Note the court did not determine if the alcohol content was in excess of .08.

 

Miranda rights are not applicable in civil refusal cases

April 2, 2014

An Appeal in the Southern District of Missouri arising out of Crawford County deals with the invocation of Miranda rights as it applies to the civil case by the Department of Revenue suspending driving privileges.

In Anyan vs. DOR, SD 32681, the record indicates that the Driver invoked his Miranda rights upon contact with the Officer. The trial court deemed any information obtained after the invocation of the Miranda rights to be inadmissible including Anyan’s refusal to submit to a chemical test. The trial court reinstated Anyan’s driving privileges on this basis.

The Director of Revenue appealed. Under Missouri’s Implied Consent law, drivers are deemed to give consent to a chemical test. A refusal of this test can result in the suspension of driving privileges for one year. A driver has the right to have the revocation reviewed in the Circuit Court of the county of arrest. This case is a civil matter and has the same standard of review as other civil matters.

Miranda does not apply in civil matters. The Miranda rule does not require warnings prior to testing for intoxication. The Appellate Court held that the invocation of Miranda rights was irrelevant to the admissibility of the refusal.

Drug recognition expert not required for probable cause to arrest

March 31, 2014

The recent decision in Hill vs Department of Revune WD 76689, delves into the issue of probable cause to believe a driver is intoxicated or in a drugged condition.

The driver, Hill, was observed by the officer driving erratically. Officer Hotmer stopped Hill. The Officer testified that he noted several indicia of intoxication, but not the smell of alcohol. The Officer requested that Hill submit to a blood test. Further, the Officer requested the assistance of drug recognition expert. Hill admitted to taking Zoloft prior to driving. Hill refused the blood test.

The Department of Revenue suspended his license for one year due to the refusal. Hill brought the matter before the trial court, which affirmed his suspension. Hill then filed this appeal. The basis for his argument is that there was not enough probable cause to believe he was operating a motor vehicle in a drugged or intoxicated state.

“Hill bases his argument on the fact that Officer Hotmer was not trained as an expert in detecting drug impairment and he was unable to secure a DRE to examine Hill.” WD76689.

“Hill fails to cite any authority in support of his conclusory argument that “expert” determination of drug intoxication is an essential requisite to establishing reasonable grounds to believe a driver is intoxicated.4 “An appellant has an obligation to cite appropriate and available precedent if he expects to prevail, and, if no authority is available to cite, he should explain the reason for the absence of citations.” Brown v. Ameristar Casino Kansas City, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 145, 148 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007). “When ‘the appellant neither cites relevant authority nor explains why such authority is not available, the appellate court is justified in considering the points abandoned and dismiss[ing] the appeal.'” Id. (citation omitted).” WD76689

” ‘Whether the driver is under the influence of alcohol or any other substance is irrelevant. The relevant inquiry is whether or not the arresting officer had reasonable grounds for believing that the arrested person was driving while in either an intoxicated or drugged condition.’ ” (citation omitted) WD76689

” ‘Probable cause exists when a police officer observes illegal operation of a motor vehicle and indicia of intoxication upon contacting the motorist.’ “(citation omitted). WD76689

“Further, Officer Hotmer testified on cross-examination that he requested the help of a DRE after he arrested Hill. Plainly, it is of no consequence that Officer Hotmer sought the assistance of a DRE after he arrested Hill. ‘Whether there is probable cause to arrest depends on the information in the officers’ possession prior to the arrest.’” (citation omitted) WD76689.

The appellate court affirmed the suspension of Hills license.

Calverton Park Municipal Court

March 5, 2014

Calverton Park Traffic Lawyers

St. Louis County – 21st Judicial Circuit
The Calverton Park Traffic Lawyers at PulledOver.com can handle it,

Calverton Park Speeding Ticket Defense

Our Calverton Park traffic lawyers handle Calverton Park speeding ticket defense, where “no points” is the goal.

Calverton Park MIP Defense

Our Calverton Park MIP lawyers handle Minor in Possession defense, where the object is keeping your record clean and your driver license from being suspended or revoked.

Calverton Park DWI Defense

Our Calverton Park DWI attorneys handle drunk driving defense, where your driver license and your freedom are at stake.

Let our Calverton Park Traffic Lawyers start helping you today. Contact Us

Calverton Park Traffic Court Information

This page contains Court information Links for Calverton Park, Missouri.

Calverton Park Municipal Court


Gerald Durfee, Court Clerk

52 Young Drive
St. Louis, MO 63135
 (314) 524-1212  x12
 (314) 524-2012 (facsimile)
www.calvertonparkmo.com

Judge
Hon. Philip Ayers

Hours
The Violations Bureau is open for payments from 9:00am to 1:00pm.

In 2012, the Municipality of Calverton Park filed over 3,400 tickets. Did you get a ticket in the municipality of Calverton Park? What should you do?

If you received a moving violation you have 3 options:

  1. Pay it
  2. Go to court and try to fight it yourself
  3. Hire an attorney.

If you pay it, there will be points assessed to your license. This can cause your insurance rates to go up and/or cause your license to be suspended. Eight points in 18 months can result in a license suspension.

If you try to fight it yourself, the first time you appear in court, your case will not be heard. You will be required to wait and then stand in front of the judge to plead guilty or not guilty. If you plead not guilty, the judge will set your case for trial and you will have to come back at another date. Taking care of the ticket yourself will result in at least two court appearances taking upwards of an hour a piece. Then if you lose, you will be required to pay the fine anyway.

If you hire an attorney, you will likely avoid the appearance and our goal is to get your moving violation amended to a non-moving violation. We have worked in the Calverton Park Municipal Court for over 10 years. We work with the prosecuting attorney to get your ticket reduced. We then notify you via email and hard copy and all you have to do is mail in your payment. Usually this process requires no appearance in court on your part saving you time and energy. For a free consultation, fill out our easy ticket submission form and one of our attorneys will contact you

Santa Fe says strict consequences for DWI are resulting in fewer

January 22, 2014

Experts in Santa Fe, New Mexico are pointing the strict consequences for a Driving While Intoxicated charge for the drop in alcohol related accidents between 2012 and 2013. Records indicate that the number of alcohol related crashes in Santa Fe was 106 in 2013 from 128 in 2012.

New Mexico is the national leader for Ignition Interlock Devices installed per 10,000 residents. State law requires an IID for all DWI offenders. The City of Santa Fe and Santa Fe County also permit vehicle forfeiture if you are arrested for a DWI and already have a conviction on your record. Not only that, since 2009 the police can seize your vehicle if you are caught Driving While Revoked as well. Last year 554 vehicles were seized under these provisions.

Lawmakers correlate the re-arrest rate of first time offenders dropping 55% since 2002 and the reduction of alcohol involved crashes by 40% between 2002 and 2010 to ignition interlock devices, checkpoints, saturation patrols, vehicle seizures and public awareness.

Missouri Traffic Points Overview

June 18, 2012

Missouri uses a Point System for to determine the suspension and revocation of driver licenses privileges in the State of Missouri.

Below is an overview of the Missouri Point System and answers our most frequently asked “Points” questions:

  • How many points will be assessed against your license if you just pay the fine and plead guilty to a moving violation?
  • How long the points will stay on your license?
  • How many points it takes before your license is suspended or revoked?

Missouri Driver License Point System

The Department of Revenue adds points to your record when it receives notice that you were convicted of a moving violation (a traffic violation while your vehicle was in motion). As experienced traffic law defense attorneys, we keep points from being assessed against our clients’ licenses day in and day out.

The number of points you receive for a conviction depends what type of moving violation resulted in the conviction. For example, a conviction for speeding in violation of a municipal ordinance will result in 2 points being added to your license. However, a conviction for speeding in violation of state law will result in 3 points being added to your license.

A conviction for leaving the scene of an accident in violation of state law will result in 12 points being added to (and the immediate suspension of) your license.

The following are some examples of some state law violations and their point values:

VIOLATION POINT VALUE
Speeding 3 points
Careless & Imprudent Driving 4 points
Knowingly Allowing an Unlicensed Driver to Drive 4 points
A Felony Involving a Motor Vehicle 12 points
Obtaining a Driver License by Misrepresentation 12 points
Operating a Vehicle While Suspended or Revoked 12 points

Missouri Driver License Point Suspension and Revocation

Point Accumulation Advisory Letter – 4 Points in 12 Months.
If you accumulate 4 points in 12 months, the Dept. of Revenue will send you a point accumulation advisory.

Suspension – 8 Points in 18 Months.
If you accumulate 8 or more points in 18 months, the Dept. of Revenue will suspend your driving privilege.

  • 1st suspension – 30 days
  • 2nd suspension – 60 days
  • 3rd or more suspensions – 90 days

Revocation
If you accumulate 12 or more points in 12 months, 18 or more points in 24 months or 24 or more points in 36 months, the Dept. of Revenue will revoke your driving privilege for one year.

  • 12 or more points in 12 months.
  • 18 or more points in 24 months.
  • 24 or more points in 36 months.

Missouri Driver License Reinstatement

To reinstate your driving privilege for a point suspension or revocation you must provide the following:

  • Non-alcohol related: Proof of insurance (SR-22) and $20 reinstatement fee.
  • Alcohol related: Proof of insurance (SR-22), $45 reinstatement fee and completion of SATOP.

Missouri Driver License Point Reduction

When your driving privilege is reinstated, the Department of Revenue reduces your total points to 4. Every year you drive without getting new points on your record, the points will be reduced:

  • 1 year – total remaining points reduced by one-third
  • 2 years – remaining points reduced by one-half
  • 3 years – points reduced to zero

Though your points may be reduced to zero, certain most convictions may remain listed permanently on your Missouri driver record.