Tag Archives: lawyer

Missouri Legislature trying to stop ticket quotas

June 8, 2016

In May, the Missouri Legislature passed a law banning law enforcement agencies from setting quotas for traffic citations. The Bill is currently awaiting signature from Governor Nixon. The Bill was sponsored by Senate Republican Eric Schmitt from Glendale. He indicated the law was necessary to prevent local law enforcement agencies from using police officers to pad their budgets. For example, the Mayor of Edmundson sent a letter to the city’s police officers telling them they needed to issue more tickets in order to help pay their salaries.

Currently only St. Louis County has restrictions on traffic citations quotas. This new law would expand to all law enforcement agencies in the state. Punishments for violation of this new law could include Class A misdemeanor charges against city officials who order employees to issue a certain number of traffic citations.  

Failure to follow instructions can count as a refusal

June 6, 2016

The Western District Court of Appeals has issued an opinion adding clarification as to what constitutes a refusal of a breathalyzer. In this case, Rader vs. DOR, WD78880, Rader agreed to take the breath test. Pursuant to trial court testimony, Rader blocked the mouthpiece of the instrument with his upper lip when he first attempted to blow. This resulted in the machine indicating that it was an insufficient sample. He was informed of this issue, but continued to place his lip over the mouthpiece on subsequent attempts also resulting in insufficient sample readings. Then, according to testimony, he indicated he wasn’t going to blow again and sat down. The Officer then noted it as a refusal to submit to a breath test.

The Appellate Court indicates that “the issue of whether a driver has refused to submit to a chemical analysis test is a question of fact to be decided by the trial court.” The Court further states: “A driver’s failure to follow instructions about the manner in which to blow into a breath analysis machine is sufficient evidence for a finder of fact to find a volitional failure to submit to a chemical analysis test as required by law.” The Court follows previous case law holding that even though an “attempt” is made, if the driver fails to follow instructions it can be deemed a refusal.

Citizens may get chance to vote red light camera tickets out

May 12, 2016

The Missouri House of Representatives recently moved legislation that would allow citizens to determine what to do with red light cameras. State Representative Bryan Spencer (R-Wentzville) introduced the ballot measure by voice vote.  The bill will receive a final vote in the state House after a fiscal review of it.

The bill then would need to be passed by the Senate and signed into law.

The bill calls for asking voters whether they want to stop cities from making new deals with red light and speed camera companies.

The bill allows jurisdictions with existing automated ticketing programs one year to wind down their contracts and shut the cameras down. The proposal also prohibits the mailing of automated citations.
Known as House Bill 1945, it calls for motorists who get a red light ticket to receive in person notification from a law enforcement officer working with the agency issuing the ticket.  It also allows the use of automated license plate readers.  The bill calls for a ballot measure on November 8.

Cases that are excluded from the bill are hit and run cases, parking tickets, open investigations, and cases in which in-person notification is not possible.

A similar bill had passed in the Missouri House last year but failed to make it to the Senate.

Similar bans have been successful at the county level in St. Charles where voters banned automated ticketing machines in 2014.  In November 2015, a court rejected attempts from three municipals to reinstate their use of the ticketing machines.

State Auditor has issued reports for Foristell and St. Ann

December 23, 2015

The State Auditor, Nicole Galloway, has begun looking into St. Louis-area municipalities regarding traffic revenue. These audits are due to the new law which limits fines, bans failure to appear charges for missing a court date, bans jail as a sentence for minor traffic offenses and restricts the revenue from court fines and fees.

Pursuant to the new law, cities are required to provide financial reports annually. Failure to do so could trigger loss of sales tax revenue and transfer of all pending cases to the county circuit court. Judges in each municipality must verify that the courts are in compliance.

Most recently Foristell, a municipality of 500, located on I-70 in St. Charles and Warren Counties the auditor’s office reviewed warrant fees. In the past, Foristell issued a $100 warrant fee for individuals that failed to pay their fines or appear in court. In 2014, this practice generated more than $65,000. Foristell has since stopped this practice.

Further Foristell had bookkeeping errors and other practices that may impair impartiality or damage credibility. Plea agreements were not always signed by the prosecuting attorney and the court issued two fees related to a failure to appear.

Also investigated was the municipality of St. Ann. St. Ann is located by the St. Louis Airport on I-70. Here, the auditor questioned a bond processing fee which had resulting in $38,000. Again the city has dropped the practice, even though they state they had authority to collect the fees.  City officials stopped accepting cash bonds to reduce the need for those additional fees.

The Auditor’s office indicated that the process worked due to local officials taking immediate action to end collection of questionable fees after the issue was raised.

St. Louis Municipalities are seeing a drop in traffic ticket revenue

October 12, 2015

The St. Louis Area has had quite a bit of criticism over the years due to its municipal court system. The St. Louis area alone has over 81 different municipal courts. Each court has its own ordinances, court staff, judge and prosecutor. Many have their own police department tasked with upholding the laws of that specific municipality. In 2013, 10 of the 25 municipal courts with the most fines and fees per capita were in St. Louis County (2013). Further, 19 of the 25 courts that issued the most warrants per capita were in North St. Louis County.

Things are changing though. Recently the traffic reform bill went into effect limiting the amount of revenue municipalities can obtain through traffic tickets. The St. Louis area was specifically targeted and received a lower revenue cap than the rest of the state. This law went into effect at the end of August, but municipalities were lowering their ticket revenue from January to July of 2015.

From data that was self-reported by the municipal courts, overall the 81 municipal courts saw a 39% decrease in traffic cases filed and 38% decrease in money collected.

  • Ferguson filed just 1,330 traffic citations between January and July. Last year the number of tickets during that timeframe was 7,031. The Ferguson Municipal Court revenue fell by 58%.
  • St. Louis County municipal court which handles unincorporated areas with divisions in north, south and west saw a 70% drop in traffic cases files and revenue collected.
  • St. Louis County is running 20% behind the Kansas City area.  This is notable as St. Louis County has over 300,000 more residents than Kansas City.
  • Bellefontaine Neighbors entered mediation after it was revealed that the department punished officers for not writing enough tickets or “meeting their quota.” Revenue in that jurisdiction is down 42% and number of cases filed is down 70%. The police chief calls this a shift due to emphasizing the community driven “serve and protect” aspect of police work instead of just enforcing the law.
  • Berkeley is down 74% by reducing their traffic unit from 4 officers last year  to one this year.
  • St Ann is down 11%, but claims it is because the Missouri Department of Transportation ended the travel safe zone in 8/2014 that doubled fines for speeders.
  • Hanley Hills citations fell from 521 last year to just 101 this year. Last year they issued 708 warrants to only 199 this year.
  • Other places have started issuing warning instead of citations.

While some places are reducing the number of tickets written, others are issuing more.

  • In Kinloch in 2014, 453 tickets were issued and revenue was at $36,104. The 1st seven months of this year has seen those numbers rise to 616 tickets with revenue of $42,808. Kinloch police chief says the increase could be due to crime fluctuations. Kinloch has a strict no tolerance policy when it comes to illegal dumping. This type of non-traffic charge is not limited by the municipal reform measure. There are no limits on fines and individuals can be held on a cash bond. Non traffic matters do not count towards the revenue cap.
  • Sunset Hills, Dellwood, Crestwood, Manchester, Eureka and Maryland Heights have increased the number of tickets written from 2014 to 2015.
  • Sunset hills has increased its revenue collection by 37%.
  • Some court dismissed old cases, but Vinita Park reset them on the court calendar.

Missouri Municipal Reforms go into effect today August 28, 2015

August 28, 2015

Senate Bill #5 goes into effect today. This bill legislated sweeping reforms to the county and municipal courts in the State of Missouri. Specifically targeted at traffic violations, this law regulates income the courts can receive and penalties they may order for traffic violators.

The law prohibits fines for traffic violations to exceed $300 when combined with court costs. This appears to be per violation and not a max fine from any one individual. Failure to pay the fines will not result in incarceration as previously allowed. Further failure to appear and/or pay will not allow the courts to issue new charges for failure to appear.

Judge Thornhill of the Springfield Municipal Court was quoted as stating, “So therefore, in that situation when people owe money but don’t come in and pay, or don’t come in and tell us why our hands are tied.”

Counties and municipalities are permitted to seize income tax refunds for amounts owed in excess of $25.00. There do not appear to be provisions to prevent courts from requesting the Department of Revenue to suspend a violators license for failure to pay. Driving While Suspended charges carry 12 points and can be filed as misdemeanors.

The amount of operating revenue that a municipality or court is permitted to receive from traffic violations has been lowered from 30% to 20% for all areas of the State except St. Louis County and its municipalities. In St. Louis County the percentage of operating revenue has been lowered to 12.5%. Each county, town, city or village will be required to file with the State Auditor a report showing amounts of fines, bond forfeitures, and courts costs and the percentage of those moneys in relation to the general operating budget of the county, town, city or village. Failure to comply could result in a loss of sales tax revenue, or in extreme cases disincorporation.

 

 

Special Group Appointed to Review Missouri Municipal Court Practices

May 16, 2015

Headed by former Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justices, Edward D. Robertson, Jr and Ann K. Covington and Appellate Judge Booker t. Shaw, an eleven member group has been created by the Missouri Supreme Court to study municipal court practices and recommend improvements. Per an order from Chief Justice Mary R. Russell, the group will have a few public hearings.

After the Department of Justice report on municipal court practices, the Court felt it necessary to appoint this group to look into, among other things, the revenue raising for municipalities from the court system. This comes right on the heels of a recent General Assembly bill aimed at reducing the percentage of a city’s operating budget that comes from traffic fines.

We should expect a preliminary report by September 1, 2015 and the final by December 1, 2015.

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.