Tag Archives: faq

Kinloch officials ordered to court to explain traffic ticket

May 23, 2017

A St. Louis County circuit court judge ordered City of Kinloch offices to appear in court to explain why they allegedly would not allow a citizen to contest a traffic ticket she received last month.

The individual, Kathy Grant of Florissant, received a $125 traffic ticket in the mail on March 6.  The ticket accused her of driving 51-mph in a 40-mph speed zone on North Hanley Road in Kinloch on February 16. 

Grant denies she was speeding.  The ticket was mailed to Grant’s husband but she admits she was the driver of the car, heading to work that day.

The ticket showed a photo of the back of Grant’s car and license plate but no photo of the driver.  Also, the ticket did not contain a specific address as to where she was caught speeding. 

 The ticket payment date for the fine was April 5, however, she gave her ticket to an attorney to handle.

According to court documents, Circuit Court Judge Douglas R. Beach ordered City Manager Justine Blue, Kinloch Mayor Darren Small, and a Kinloch judge, Christopher Bent, to appear in court last week on May 11 to explain why the ticket was not a violation of Missouri law.

The ticket apparently allows the fine to be paid directly to a private company, and was not filed in Kinloch municipal court, according to the order.

Apparently a party had asked the Municipal Court for a trial on the allegations against them.  They were told that the notice was not a ticket. At this point, due process was not granted nor is it available to challenge the notice, the judge’s order stated.

The concern is that the notices are misleading to the public that they are part of the court process with due process of law.

 

MO Appellate Court rules on State’s driving eligibility rule

May 10, 2017

The Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District (Division Three) held last week that Missouri substantive law governs the Director or Revenue’s decisions when it comes to issuance, suspension, or revocation of a Missouri license regardless of the driver’s home state at the time of conviction. The interstate Driver License Compact does not supplant the Missouri 10-year ineligibility rule under §302.060(9), the appellate court said.

 

Here is the background of the case.  The Director of Revenue appealed the trial court’s judgment ordering the DOR to issue a Missouri driver’s license to William Thanner.

 

Thanner received three DWI convictions while residing in Georgia between 1996 and 2010. He completed all requirements for reinstatement in Georgia and had a valid Georgia license when he moved in 2015 to Missouri. The Director of DOR denied Thanner’s application for a Missouri license, citing §302.060(9) imposing a 10-year ban following two or more DWI convictions. Upon judicial review, the trial court ordered the Director to issue Thanner a Missouri license, reasoning that Thanner’s Georgia license was entitled to reciprocity under the interstate Driver License Compact (§302.600).

 

The trial court’s judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for the trial court to reinstate the Director’s denial of Thanner’s application for an unrestricted license and proceed on his request for limited driving privileges.

 

 The opinion was written by Judge’s Lisa Van Amburg with judges Angela T. Quigless and Robert G. Dowd, Jr., concurring. The attorney for Appellant was Rachel Jones and the attorney for Respondent was Keith Liberman.

 

The appellate court stated the following as to its analysis:

 

“Here, the trial court adopted Thanner’s rationale and conclusions of law, relying entirely on a dissent opining that §302.160 applies only to drivers holding a Missouri license when the out-of-state offense occurred, and citing full faith and credit without analysis.2 Johnston v. Director of Revenue, 305 S.W.3d 465 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010). In that case, a Kentucky driver was convicted of DWI in 1996, but his conviction was not affirmed on appeal until 2006. In the interim, Johnston’s conviction remaining unreported, and he moved to Missouri and obtained a Missouri license in 2005. When the Kentucky DWI conviction was finally affirmed and reported in 2006, the Director suspended Johnston’s Missouri license. Despite the fact that Kentucky was Johnston’s home state at the time of the offense, this court affirmed the Director’s suspension, reasoning that the Director was entitled to rely on the conviction date as reported by Kentucky. While unusual on its chronological facts, Johnston remains instructive for its adherence to a strict liability approach to Missouri’s 10-year rule under §302.060(9), consistent with other appellate decisions cited above.

 

‘Thanner did not develop his full faith and credit argument into legal analysis and essentially abandoned it at oral argument, conceding that it does not mandate reciprocal recognition of state-specific licenses (e.g., drivers, teachers, lawyers).  Simply put, Missouri substantive law controls the Director’s issuance, suspension, or revocation of a Missouri license regardless of the driver’s home state at the time of the conviction. Nothing in the Compact mandates differential treatment.”

Fate of GPS for interlock ignition devices uncertain in Minn.

March 14, 2017

If you are a convicted drunk driver in the state of Minnesota, your location is being tracked through a GPS tracking system.  However, the Minnesota state legislature never approved its current use by the Department of Public Safety. 

It should be noted for our Missouri readers that the State of Missouri, through the Department of Revenue, requires GPS tracking for hardship licenses and reinstatement after a DWI.

There are some 11,000 convicted DUI drivers in Minnesota.  The DPS is currently tracking their whereabouts with GPS.  The interlock ignition law was passed in 2010 without the intention of tracking drivers with a GPS system.  Some legislators in Minnesota are concerned about whether this tracking is overreaching and unconstitutional.

A bi-partisan group of lawmakers are proposing a bill to end the use of GPS tracking of DUI offenders using ignition interlock equipment.

Opponents of the GPS tracking say that the issue is not that they are being tracked while driving drunk but that they are being tracked while they are sober. During recent hearings on the issue, the ACLU has stated that GPS tracking equates to a 4th Amendment search.  Criminal defense attorneys have testified that prosecutors could subpoena the GPS data for other criminal cases that are not connected to the DUI conviction.

The DPS has argued that the advantage of GPS is that they have immediate reporting of user violations, allowing them to take instant action instead of waiting at least 30 days to check a driver’s log.  Log verification was how it was done in the past.  DPS further states that they do not use or store data that they receive beyond the actual day it was recorded.

The proposed bill has received two amendments out of committee. The amendments would mandate that all DUI convicted Interlock users must be informed that their interlock device could potentially track them via GPS, and that they can be turned on by a court order.

St. Louis County Municipal court revenue down since Ferguson unrest

February 21, 2017

Looks as if the amount of revenue from St. Louis area municipal courts is way down since the social unrest in 2014 after the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson. This is according to research tabulated in an annual report by the Missouri state court system.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch tabulated information from the report and found that the data shows there has been a significant drop in revenue collected by municipal courts in St. Louis County.  Revenue was down from $53 million in fines and fees collected in year ending June 2014 to $29 million in year ending June 2016.

A similar trend can be seen in the number of traffic cases in the city of St. Louis.  The number of traffic cases filed last year fell to 66,008. This represents a drop of 69 percent compared to two years ago.

The data shows that the number of traffic cases in Ferguson last year, 1,736, had dropped 85 percent from two years ago, and non-traffic cases were down a similar percentage.  Ferguson’s court revenue plummeted from more than $2 million two years ago to just $579,000 this last year.  Ferguson had been under fire from the U.S. Department of Justice in the aftermath of Michael Brown. 

Ferguson’s municipal court system had been the target of a scathing U.S. Department of Justice report as well as intense scrutiny from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and other media.  Local attorneys can tell you that the long lines out the door are no longer the case.

Other cities in North County known for their intense speed traps along the I-70 corridor have also seen a drop in revenue, according to the court report.

St. Ann, for example, saw revenue drop nearly a million dollars from $2.6 million two years ago to $1.7 million this last year. Tickets issued fell during that same time period from over 25,000 to 9,880. 

Florissant municipal court revenue went from $2.6 million to $1.7 million. Normandy fell from $1.4 million to slightly over $788,000.  Pine Lawn dropped from $2,2 million to $652,925.  Berkeley was down from $1.2 million to $378,327.

Law enforcement ups efforts to prevent DWIs over holidays

December 27, 2016

Watch out for intoxicated drivers this holiday season.  At least that’s what Missouri Highway Patrol is planning to do.  Law enforcement agencies around the country are expected to step up their efforts to curtail drinking and driving these next couple weeks.

Many law enforcement agencies from across the nation will be participating in an initiative called “Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over.”

According to news reports, the Missouri State Highway Patrol intends to increase the number of officers and checkpoints for the holidays.  Law enforcement officials say the combination of bad weather such as ice and snow plus driving impaired leads to a significant number of accidents.

Many Missouri courts will punish the first time DWI offender with some combination of fines, jail time, probation, community service, victim impact panels, and treatment through DWI courts.  They hope to curtail the number of DWI’s and DWI repeat offenders.   Missouri in 2015 had 870 traffic fatalities of which just under one-fourth of them involved some form of alcohol or drug impairment.

Be sure to have fun and drive safe this holiday season.  Happy Holidays.

MADD lowers grade on efforts by Missouri, Illinois to prevent drunk driving

December 5, 2016

Missouri and Illinois slipped in how Mothers Against Drunk Driving ranked both states’ efforts to prevent drunk driving.

MADD recently released its annual overview ranking each state’s progress in stopping drunken driving. There are five areas to judge and rank each state. They include the following:

1) How sobriety checkpoints are conducted;

2) The degree of punishments for putting children in danger;

3) Whether or not ignition interlocks are required, which is a machine that prevents a car from starting if a driver’s blood-alcohol level exceeds a certain limit;

4) Whether drivers licenses are revoked; and

5) The degree of punishment for refusing a blood-alcohol test.

It was just last year that Missouri and Illinois received the highest rating of five stars. This was the first year that a new half-star ranking was used in order to provide a more nuanced analysis of each category.  This year both Missouri and Illinois dropped a half star to four stars.

Each state slipped because of how it handled license suspensions, with Missouri for its blood-test refusals and Illinois for its punishments related to child endangerment.

Missouri does not have a statewide “no-refusal” law that requires police to obtain a warrant to draw blood from suspected drunk drivers who have refused to take a breath test. There are counties, such as St. Louis County since 2013, that do this on their own.  However, other counties have not chosen to do so.

Missouri does have an implied consent law that mandates that a driver who refuses to be tested will lose their driving privileges for one year.  The number of refusals have been dropping in Missouri.

Some 973 people nationwide were killed nationwide in drunken driving crashes.  These deaths occurred between Thanksgiving and New Year’s Day, amounting to almost 10 percent of all drunk driving accidents. MADD contends that almost a third of traffic deaths on the day before Thanksgiving Day and Christmas involved drunk driving.

 

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.

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.

The SATOP Assessment Screening Process Overview

June 15, 2012

The first part of the SATOP process is an assessment screening of the driver’s alcohol and substance use as it relates to their driving behavior. Based on the results of the SATOP assessment screening, the driver is recommended to a specific SATOP program level; either education, intervention, or rehabilitation. There are seven different SATOP program levels which may be recommended. Each of the six SATOP program levels are described below in Part Two.

The screening assessment is conducted at a certified SATOP Offender Management Unit (OMU) by a Qualified Substance Abuse Professional (QSAP). Click here for a complete list off all certified SATOP OMU’s in Missouri (listed alphabetically by County and City). The driver may chose any approved OMU and must contact an OMU to make an appointment for an initial screening.

Upon arrival at the OMU for the initial screening appointment, the driver must pay a $126 “Screening Fee” and a $249 “Supplemental Fee” ($375 total). The assessment screening consists of the following:

  1. Department of Revenue Missouri Driver History Record Check (conducted by the OMU);
  2. Completion of the Missouri Driver Risk Inventory II (DRI-II) (written test); and
  3. An Individualized Interview with a Qualified Substance Abuse Professional (QSAP).

The Written Test: Driver Risk Inventory II (DRI-II)

The Driver Risk Inventory II (DRI-II) is a test designed by Behavior Data Systems, Ltd. specifically for DWI / DUI offender assessment. The test booklet contains 140 items; 84 true or false questions and 56 multiple choice questions. The DRI-II is written at a 5th or 6th grade reading level. It usually takes 20-25 minutes to complete.

The DRI-II test contains six (6) different scales designed to measure the following:

  • Truthfulness Scale: This scale is designed to measure how truthful the driver was while completing the DRI-II. It is intended to detect denial and identifies attempts to try and fake good.
  • Alcohol Scale: This scale is designed to measures alcohol (beer, wine and other liquor) use and abuse. It is intended to measure the severity of alcohol abuse while identifying alcohol-related problems.
  • Drugs Scale: This scale is designed to measure the severity of illicit drug (marijuana, crack, cocaine, amphetamines, barbiturates and heroin) use and abuse while identifying drug-related problems.
  • Substance Abuse/Dependency Scale: This scale uses American Psychiatric Association diagnostic criteria (DSM-IV) to classify substance abuse or substance dependency.
  • Driver Risk Scale: This scale is designed to measure driver risk independent of substance (alcohol or other drugs) use or abuse. This scale presumes that some people are simply dangerous drivers.
  • Stress Coping Abilities Scale: This scale is designed to measure the driver’s ability to cope effectively with stress on the theory that stress exacerbates symptoms of emotional and mental health problems.

The DRI-II report has three sections. Section 1 begins with a demographic sub-section, setting forth the driver’s name, age, gender, ethnicity, education, and marital status. Also in Section 1 is a graph setting forth the driver’s DRI-II scale scores and corresponding DRI-II profile. The graph summarizes the driver’s performance on the test. The third item in Section 1 is a “Supplemental Information” sub-section that sets forth the driver’s self-reported driver history.

Section 2 of the DRI-II report consists of six (6) paragraphs, each containing a summary of the driver’s scale scores for each of the six (6) scales: Truthfulness Scale, Dependency/Abuse Classification, Alcohol Scale, Driver Risk Scale and the Drugs Scale. Each paragraph contains an explanation of what the scale score means and sets forth specific scale score related recommendations. Following the scale score paragraphs is a ” Significant Items” sub-section which lists “direct admissions” or “unusual answers” given by the driver for the Alcohol Scale, Drugs Scale, and Driver Risk Scale.

Section 3 of the DIR-II report contains the answers selected by the driver to the multiple choice questions . There is a space in Section 3 for staff member’s comments, recommendations and signature. The report ends with a reproduction of the driver’s answers to all the DRI-II items.

The Interview: Individualized Interview with a Qualified Substance Abuse Professional (QSAP)

The second step of the SATOP driver assessment screening process is a face-to-face interview with a Qualified Substance Abuse Professional (QSAP). The SATOP individualized interview usually takes about 20-30 minutes. During the interview, the QSAP asks questions intended to confirm or clarify information on the DIR-II report. According to the Division of Mental Health, an individualized interview is the core of the screening process…and is critical in the development of the offender referral to either education or rehabilitation.” The following are some of the items to be considered by the QSAP during the interview:

  1. The DIR-II report;
  2. The Dept. of Revenue report;
  3. Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at the time of arrest;
  4. Driver’s prior treatment history;
  5. The existence, nature and extent of the driver’s social, legal, and/or family problems; and
  6. The driver’s physical appearance at the time of the interview.

The Screening Recommendation: Referral to a SATOP Program
The Qualified Substance Abuse Professional (QSAP) who interprets the DIR-II report and conducts the individualized interview of the driver makes a professional judgment, taking into account the criteria established by the Department, as to what level of SATOP is most appropriate; either education, intervention, or rehabilitation. The QSAP then recommends the driver attend an appropriate SATOP program level and refers the driver that level of SATOP. The driver then must attend and successfully complete the recommended SATOP program.

The factors a QSAP is to take into account when evaluating a driver and making a SATOP program level recommendation include, but are not limited to, the following:

  1. The DIR-II test results;
  2. The driver’s Missouri Driver History (driving record);
  3. The driver’s BAC at the time of the arrest;
  4. The QSAP’s interpretation of the individualized interview;
  5. The driver’s prior alcohol or drug treatment history;
  6. The existence, nature and extent of the driver’s social, personal, and/or legal problems;
  7. The driver’s physical appearance at the time of the interview.

The Seven SATOP Program Levels

The are seven (7) different SATOP program levels. The following is a brief description of each of the seven (7) different SATOP program levels.

1. Offender Education Program (OEP)

SATOP’s Offender Education Program (OEP) is a 10-hour education course designed specifically to assist lower risk, first-time offenders in understanding the choices they made that led to their intoxication and arrest. The course is premised on the idea that education is key to helping first-time offenders take responsibility for their actions. Click Here for more information on SATOP’s Offender Education Program (OEP).

2. Adolescent Diversion Education Program (ADEP)

SATOP’s Adolescent Diversion Education Program (ADEP) is an education program for minors who may have received Abuse/Lose, Minor in Possession, or Zero Tolerance offenses. Click Here for more information on SATOP’s Adolescent Diversion Education Program (ADEP).

3. Weekend Intervention Program (WIP)

SATOP’s Weekend Intervention Program (WIP) is a program level designed for repeat offenders or “high risk” first-time offenders. The WIP uses intensive education and counseling intervention methods over a marathon weekend of structured activities. The program is conducted in a restrictive environment. Click Here for more information on SATOP’s Weekend Intervention Program (WIP).

4. Clinical Intervention Program (CIP)

SATOP’s Clinical Intervention Program (CIP) is a 50-hour outpatient counseling program consisting of individual counseling, group counseling, and group education. Ten hours must address DWI/DUI issues. Click Here for more information on SATOP’s Clinical Intervention Program (CIP).

5. Youth Clinical Intervention (YCIP)

SATOP’s Youth CLinical Intervention Program (YCIP) is designed for minors who have been identified through the screening process as having serious problems with substance abuse. Click Here for more information on SATOP’s Youth Clinical Intervention Program (YCIP).

6.  Serious and Repeat Offender Program (SROP – Level IV)

SATOPS’ Serious and Repeat Offender Program (SROP) is an outpatient program consisting of at least 75 hours of treatment in no less than 90 days. Services must include a minimum of 35 hours of individual and/or group counseling. Successful completion of the treatment is left to the discretion of the program’s clinical staff based on the specific needs of the consumer.

6. Traditional Treatment:

Individuals presenting for SATOP services having multiple alcohol or drug related traffic offenses, or those identified through the screening process as being at a “high risk” for chemical dependency, may receive a recommendation for more traditional treatment. Individuals may also choose, for a variety of reasons, to complete a traditional treatment program. This treatment may be in the form of a residential program or an intensive outpatient program but must be completed at a state certified, or nationally accredited, substance abuse treatment program. Click Here for more information on Traditional Treatment options provided by the Missouri Department of Mental Health, Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse.

Fairness of SATOP Screening and Referrals
(Missouri’s Official Position)

From the Missouri Division of Mental Health on SATOP screening:

“Standards clearly indicate that screening recommendations shall be impartial and solely based on the needs of the offender and the welfare of society. QSAP recommendations cannot be used as a means of “case finding” for any specific program or as a marketing tool for any SATOP program. Programs violating this provision can face probation and/or revocation of certification. Cooperation in this area by an OMU is essential to assure the integrity of SATOP statewide. Failure to be objective in all cases may jeopardize the future of the OMU to continue this service. Division staff will closely monitor agency referrals and recommend any necessary disciplinary action.”

Can I have the Abuse and Lose action removed from my driver record? If so, When? How?

June 15, 2012

The Abuse and Lose action may be removed only after five years from the driver license reinstatement date. A written request must be submitted to the Driver License Bureau requesting the Abuse and Lose action be removed from the Missouri driver record.

Missouri Revised Statutes

Chapter 577
Public Safety Offenses
Section 577.500

August 28, 2009

Suspension or revocation of driving privileges, persons under twenty-one years of age–violation of certain laws–surrender of licenses–court to forward to director of revenue–period of suspension.

577.500. 1. A court of competent jurisdiction shall, upon a plea of guilty, conviction or finding of guilt, or, if the court is a juvenile court, upon a finding of fact that the offense was committed by a juvenile, enter an order suspending or revoking the driving privileges of any person determined to have committed one of the following offenses and who, at the time said offense was committed, was under twenty-one years of age:

(1) Any alcohol-related traffic offense in violation of state law or a county or, beginning July 1, 1992, municipal ordinance, where the defendant was represented by or waived the right to an attorney in writing;

(2) Any offense in violation of state law or, beginning July 1, 1992, a county or municipal ordinance, where the defendant was represented by or waived the right to an attorney in writing, involving the possession or use of alcohol, committed while operating a motor vehicle;

(3) Any offense involving the possession or use of a controlled substance as defined in chapter 195, RSMo, in violation of the state law or, beginning July 1, 1992, a county or municipal ordinance, where the defendant was represented by or waived the right to an attorney in writing;

(4) Any offense involving the alteration, modification or misrepresentation of a license to operate a motor vehicle in violation of section 311.328, RSMo;

(5) Any offense in violation of state law or, beginning July 1, 1992, a county or municipal ordinance, where the defendant was represented by or waived the right to an attorney in writing, involving the possession or use of alcohol for a second time; except that a determination of guilt or its equivalent shall have been made for the first offense and both offenses shall have been committed by the person when the person was under eighteen years of age.

2. A court of competent jurisdiction shall, upon a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, conviction or finding of guilt, or, if the court is a juvenile court, upon a finding of fact that the offense was committed by a juvenile, enter an order suspending or revoking the driving privileges of any person determined to have committed a crime or violation of section 311.325, RSMo, and who, at the time said crime or violation was committed, was more than fifteen years of age and under twenty-one years of age.

3. The court shall require the surrender to it of any license to operate a motor vehicle, temporary instruction permit, intermediate driver’s license or any other driving privilege then held by any person against whom a court has entered an order suspending or revoking driving privileges under subsections 1 and 2 of this section.

4. The court, if other than a juvenile court, shall forward to the director of revenue the order of suspension or revocation of driving privileges and any licenses, temporary instruction permits, intermediate driver’s licenses, or any other driving privilege acquired under subsection 3 of this section.

5. (1) The court, if a juvenile court, shall forward to the director of revenue the order of suspension or revocation of driving privileges and any licenses, temporary instruction permits, intermediate driver’s licenses, or any other driving privilege acquired under subsection 3 of this section for any person sixteen years of age or older, the provision of chapter 211, RSMo, to the contrary notwithstanding.

(2) The court, if a juvenile court, shall hold the order of suspension or revocation of driving privileges for any person less than sixteen years of age until thirty days before the person’s sixteenth birthday, at which time the juvenile court shall forward to the director of revenue the order of suspension or revocation of driving privileges, the provision of chapter 211, RSMo, to the contrary notwithstanding.

6. The period of suspension for a first offense under subsection 1 of this section shall be ninety days. Any second or subsequent offense under subsection 1 of this section shall result in revocation of the offender’s driving privileges for one year. The period of suspension for a first offense under subsection 2 of this section shall be thirty days. The period of suspension for a second offense under subsection 2 of this section shall be ninety days. Any third or subsequent offense under subsection 2 of this section shall result in revocation of the offender’s driving privileges for one year.