Tag Archives: St louis attorney

Woodson Terrace Municipal Court

October 2, 2018

Woodson Terrace Municipal Court Traffic Attorneys
Woodson Terrace, MO Traffic Court
Woodson Terrace Traffic Lawyers

Did you get a ticket in Woodson Terrace, Missouri?

In 2018, Woodson Terrace Municipal Court issued 1527 tickets.
Stop Sign, Electric Signal Violation, Driving While Suspended, Possession of Marijuana, or any other ticket, our Woodson Terrace traffic lawyers can handle it where “no points” is the goal.

Woodson Terrace Speeding Ticket Traffic Law Defense
Did you receive a Speeding ticket in Woodson Terrace?

Our Woodson Terrace traffic lawyers handle speeding ticket defense, where “no points” is the goal.
Let our Woodson Terrace traffic law attorneys start helping you today. Fill out the form on the side of this page.

This page contains Court information and links for Woodson Terrace, Missouri.

Woodson Terrace Municipal Court
4323 Woodson Rd
Woodson Terrace, MO 63134

Phone: 314-427-2600 ext 147 or 131

City of Woodson Terrace, MO website.

Court Hours

Monday-Friday

8:30am – 4:30pm, on Court days the office will close at 4:00.

The Court tries matters such as violations of traffic code, maintenance code and other ordinances; and is held on the first Wednesday of each month at 6:30pm, unless the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, in which case the rescheduled date will be posted on our calendar.

Please note the following important information about paying fines:

  • Speeding Violations are not“automatically set up” to pay online and require a call to the court’s office.
  • Case(s) represented by an attorney that have received recommendation are also not “automatically set up” to pay online and request a call to the court office as well.

For information regarding warrants and disposition none will be given over the phone, you must appear in person with photo id.

Understanding Bonds:

A $100.00 cash bond is posted in person at the W.T. Police Station with either a State License or State ID card to cancel a W.T. Warrant and obtain a Court Date.

Once a bond is posted and a Court Date issued, then the bond may be applied in person on or before (depending upon case disposition) the court date given, at the court building, with State License or State ID. A Bond Consent Form must be filled out.

Webster Groves Municipal Court

October 1, 2018

Webster Groves Municipal Court Traffic Attorneys
Webster Groves, MO Traffic Court
Webster Groves Traffic Lawyers

Webster Groves Speeding Ticket Traffic Law Defense

Did you receive a Speeding ticket in Webster Groves?
Our Webster Groves traffic lawyers handle speeding ticket defense, where “no points” is the goal.
Let our Webster Groves traffic law attorneys start helping you today. Fill out the form on the side of this page.

This page contains Court information and links for Webster Groves, Missouri.

Webster Groves Municipal Court
#4 E. Lockwood
Webster Groves, MO 63119

Phone: 314-963-5416
Fax: 314-963-1514

City of Webster Groves, MO website.

Court Hours
Monday-Friday
8:00am – 4:00pm
Municipal Court is generally conducted on the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays of the month at 5:30 pm in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, #4 East Lockwood, Webster Groves, Missouri, 63119.

For security purposes, those attending Court must enter through the front doors. If you require use of the accessible entrance, have someone in your party contact the officer stationed at the front door or use the call button on the east side of the building at the Police Department entrance. Americans with Disabilities Act Notice

Bellefontaine Neighbors Municipal Court

October 1, 2018

Bellefontaine Neighbors Municipal Court Traffic Attorneys
Bellefontaine Neighbors, MO Traffic Court
Bellefontaine Neighbors Traffic Lawyers

Did you get a ticket in Bellefontaine Neighbors, Missouri?

In 2018, Bellefontaine Neighbors Municipal Court issued 1498 tickets.
Stop Sign, Electric Signal Violation, Driving While Suspended, Possession of Marijuana, or any other ticket, our Bellefontaine Neighbors traffic lawyers can handle it where “no points” is the goal.

Bellefontaine Neighbors Speeding Ticket Traffic Law Defense

Did you receive a Speeding ticket in Bellefontaine Neighbors?
Our Bellefontaine Neighbors traffic lawyers handle speeding ticket defense, where “no points” is the goal.
Let our Bellefontaine Neighbors traffic law attorneys start helping you today. Fill out the form on the side of this page.

This page contains Court information and links for Bellefontaine Neighbors, Missouri.

Bellefontaine Neighbors Municipal Court
9641 Bellefontaine Rd
Bellefontaine Neighbors, MO 63137

Phone: 314-867-0076
Fax: 314-867-1790

City of Bellefontaine Neighbors, MO website.

Presiding Judge
Hon. John Duepner
Court Administrator
Alysa Stewart

Municipal Court convenes at 6:30pm on the second Wednesday of each month in the Courtroom, located at 9641 Bellefontaine Road. Doors to City Hall open at 5:30pm. Cases are heard on a first-come, first-served basis. The Judge will call defendants in the order they have entered the Courtroom. Any payment is expected at the time of court appearance.

DAY COURT
Municipal Court will also convene at 1:00pm on the third Wednesday of each month in the Courtroom. Doors to the Courtroom will open at 12:30pm. Attorney call will be at 1:00pm. Day court will cover Housing cases, Trials, Bond Forfeitures, and DWI’s.

RULES OF COURT:
Appropriate dress is required
All Defendants, under the age of 18, must appear with a parent or legal guardian
All electronic devices must be turned off

FEE SCHEDULE (Dated 01/2016)

MUNICOURT.NET: You can track your case or check on court/payment dates. https://www.municourt.net

Blood shot eyes, alcohol breath not enough for intoxication

September 26, 2018

A Missouri Western District appellate court recently ruled in favor of a driver charged with a DWI. Basically it said law enforcement use of evidence of the smell of intoxicants from Defendant’s breath and observing the driver’s bloodshot eyes was insufficient in of itself to show intoxication.

In this case, Defendant was pulled over by a state trooper for expired tags, not because of erratic driving. Defendant refused to blow. Defendant is appealing the circuit court’s judgment affirming the Director of Revenue’s decision to revoke his driving privilege for one year for refusing to take a chemical test pursuant to Section 302.574.

The defendant contends that the circuit court’s finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was driving a motor vehicle in an intoxicated or drugged condition was not supported by substantial evidence.

The appellate court said that after reviewing the record, there was no indicia of intoxication present at the time of Defendant’s arrest to support a finding of probable cause for that arrest. Trooper testified at trial that he was concerned that Defendant was intoxicated due to “the odor of intoxicants and then the bloodshot eyes and he admitted to drinking prior to the stop.” The Trooper testified that “I believed that he was under the influence, too impaired to drive.” However, he also testified that the only evidence of impairment was the smell of alcohol and Defendant’s bloodshot eyes. Defendant told Trooper that his bloodshot eyes were due to being tired. Although Defendant had admitted to drinking, his reported last drink was fifteen hours prior to the stop.

The State Trooper’s following testimony of what he observed failed to establish intoxication:
• Observed no other evidence of intoxication from Rocha’s eyes; he observed no glassy eyes, staring eyes, constricted pupils, slow reaction to light, dilated pupils, or anything else that Cool was trained to look for as evidence of intoxication.
• Observed no gross motor movements that would suggest impairment.
• Observed no signs of uncertain balance, swaying, staggering, stumbling, or falling.
• Trooper followed Defendant for almost two miles before stopping Defendant, and during that time he observed nothing about Defendant’s driving that would indicate impairment.
• Observed that when Trooper’s emergency lights went on, Defendant stopped almost immediately.
• Observed no verbal indicators of impairment such as slurred speech, confusion, incoherency, stuttering, or mumbling.
• Observed nothing about Rocha’s clothing or footwear indicated impairment, and Rocha exhibited no unusual behaviors.
• Observed that Defendant recited the alphabet correctly.

The appellate court reversed the lower court and remanded the case. The case was Carlos Rocha v. Department of Revenue. The case was heard before Division Four Judges: Judge Mark D. Pfeiffer; Presiding Judge, Gary D. Witt; and Judge, Anthony Rex Gabbert.

Literal compliance with filing rules for Breathalyzer unnecessary

August 24, 2018

A recent Eastern District of Missouri appellate decision appears to be pro-law enforcement.

The trial court concluded the blood alcohol content results were inadmissible because the officer had not filed a copy of the maintenance report of the breathalyzer with the DHSS, as it is required under 19 CSR 25-30.031(3). The breathalyzer determines whether someone exceeded the allowed drinking amount by taking the person’s blood alcohol content (BAC). The trial court thereby reinstated the driving privileges of a man in St. Charles County. The Department of Revenue then appealed the decision.

The appellate court reversed and remanded, stating that the trial court was in error, and that absolute and literal compliance with the filing requirement in that regulation is not required because it was a collateral issue that did not affect the performance or validity of the breath test. As a maintenance report was done, the fact that it wasn’t filed with the DHSS was ancillary.

The case was Gerald R. Roam v. Department of Revenue. The opinion was written by Judge Robert G. Dowd, Jr.. Judges J. Philip J. Hess, P.J. and Mary K. Hoff, J., concurred. The attorney for the Appellant was Morgan Brewington, and attorney for Respondent was Robert S. Adler.

The court wrote: “In spite of the established case law, Roam insists that the Director must demonstrate “absolute and literal compliance” with this DHSS regulation before the BAC results can be admitted into evidence, and the trial court seems to have agreed. Besides being in conflict with the above law, our courts have specifically rejected this proposition as well. In Potts v. State, the court held instead that the Director must only demonstrate absolute and literal compliance with those regulations “governing the actual performance” of the maintenance check and not with those regulations “governing collateral issues which do not affect the actual performance or validity of the test itself.” 22 S.W.3d 226, 230 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (emphasis added). Potts determined that the requirement for filing a copy of the maintenance report with DHSS is a collateral issue that does not affect the performance or validity of the breath test. Id. at 231. Roam has failed to adequately address, much less distinguish, Turcotte, Potts or any of the above precedent. Instead, he stated in his brief that the trial court had Turcotte before it, knew the law and is presumed to have followed it. But clearly the court did not follow the law. It was error not to admit the BAC results on the ground that the maintenance report had not been filed with DHSS. Therefore, we must reverse and remand.”

A call to put teeth back into enforcing traffic violations

August 1, 2018

Did the 2015 municipal court reforms for traffic violations go too far?

That is the subject of a great editorial by the Kansas City Star a few weeks ago talking about how too many people with traffic tickets are not paying their fines and are getting away with it. Since the state-wide municipal court reform after the Ferguson uprising, there doesn’t seem to be any punishment for not paying fines and not showing up to court.

In many communities, traffic violators have figured out that they don’t need to show up to court because the effective tools of punishment such as higher fines, warrants for not showing up to court, or suspending a person’s license is not an option.

Maximum fines were lowered from $500 to $225. Many cities coffers are severely depleted and are finding it difficult to impossible to enforce law violators without an adequate budget. This has also carried over to enforcement of residential nuisance ordinances that are designed to keep housing safe, particularly with abandoned properties.

For example, one person who didn’t show up to court in a town near Kansas City had been arrested four times for a $450 ticket from 2015 for driving with no insurance and driving with a suspended license. She still hasn’t paid, and likely never will.

One judge was quoted as saying, “These people just continue to drive, except they don’t drive to court.”

One state senator tried to pass a bill to put some teeth back into law enforcement. His idea was that if a citizen fails to show up for a court date, a judge could order community service, issue a civil fine or put a hold on a driver’s license.

The editorial calls for Missouri to revisit its 2015 reforms with the goal of restoring some authority to its municipal courts to better find a balance between being overbearing on constituency and effectively punishing and enforcing our traffic laws. Because as the editorial states, “As of now, they’ve been effectively defanged.”

Crestwood Municipal Court Traffic, MIP and DWI attorneys

June 20, 2018

Crestwood, MO Traffic Court

Crestwood Traffic Lawyers

Did you get a ticket in Crestwood, Missouri?

Stop Sign, Electric Signal Violation, Driving While Suspended, Possession of Marijuana, or any other ticket, our Crestwood traffic lawyers can handle it where “no points” is the goal.

Crestwood Speeding Ticket Traffic Law Defense

Did you receive a Speeding ticket in Crestwood?
Our Crestwood traffic lawyers handle speeding ticket defense, where “no points” is the goal.

Crestwood MIP Lawyers

Did you receive a Minor in Possession ticket?
Our Crestwood MIP lawyers handle MIP defense, where the object is keeping your record clean and your driver license from being suspended or revoked.

Crestwood DWI Criminal Defense Attorneys

Did you receive a ticket for Driving While Intoxicated?
Our Crestwood DWI attorneys handle drunk driving defense, where your driver license and your freedom are at stake. We handle all aspects including the Administrative Hearing or the ramifications of a refusal.

Let our Crestwood traffic law attorneys start helping you today. Fill out the form on the side of this page.

This page contains Court information Links for Crestwood, Missouri.

Crestwood Municipal Court
1 Detjen Dr.
Crestwood, MO 63126

Phone: 314-729-4776

Fax: 314-729-4882

City of Crestwood, MO website.

For more information regarding your case visit Missouri Casenet. If your case was prior to 8/5/2019 your information can be found at municourt.net

Judge
Hon. Jason Denney

Prosecuting Attorney
Dan O’Brien

Court Administrator
Stacey Fields

Office Houses

Monday-Friday 8:00am — 4:30pm

Court Dates and Docket Dates
Traffic: 1st Thursday of every month at 7:00 P.M. Trial Docket: 4th Thursday of the month.
General Ordinance Violations: 3rd Thursday of every month at 7:00 PM

As of 3/26/2021, all person court sessions remain suspended at this time due to COVID 19. Dockets are being held virtually. Check the Court Website for information on how to request a virtual hearing before the judge. 

Court fines may be paid by one of the following methods:

To pay online, mail your signed recommendation to the address below. Once your plea is processed you will be set up to make your payment online.

Mail payments in the form of check or money order only made payable to City of Crestwood to:

Crestwood Municipal Court
1 Detjen Dr.
Crestwood, MO 63126

Pay fines in person with check or money order at the secure drop box 24 hours a day.

Cities causing home owners to make up for traffic ticket revenue drops

June 4, 2018

Drivers are no longer the only people that need to watch out for overzealous small cities seeking to raise money instead of raising taxes. Now homeowners are being aggressively targeted to pay fines related to housing violations.

Apparently, the use of traffic violations is not the only way small cities are raising money to run their towns. A recent trend, especially in the St. Louis region since the post-Ferguson Court Reform that capped the amount of revenue raised from traffic tickets, is for cities to pursue neighborhood ordinance nuisance violations.

What we saw in the St. Louis metro area since post Ferguson also takes place around the country. New stats compiled shows that many cities are using these tactics to raise money and that several St. Louis area municipals remain among the top practitioners.

Cash-strapped towns and cities across the nation don’t want to raise taxes to pay the costs of running their cities. Instead, they are using their nuisance laws — with fines and fees for minor traffic violations and violations of local housing codes — to balance their budgets.

For example, in Mountain View, Colorado – a town of around 500 people — made $621,099 in citation revenue in 2013, almost half its annual budget. Several other small Colorado towns in 2015 made more than 30 percent of their revenue from issuing traffic tickets.

The Institute for Justice has filed lawsuits around the country taking on these practices. One lawsuit in Pagedale, Missouri (a town of 3,300), notes that some 1,336 tickets were issued to 896 individuals for housing violations between a seven-year period (January 2010-September 2017). That would mean 39 percent of the city’s adult population was cited.

Violations could include failure to “neatly” hang drapes or curtains; small tears in screen doors; hosting a barbecue in front yards; failure to keep beer away from the grill; etc. A consent decree was negotiated recently that settles the case. The settlement includes reforms on how the City identifies, tickets, and tries those accused of violating its municipal code.

Below is a list of several jurisdictions that heavily rely upon the use of fines and fees to raise revenues. Many of this are right here in Missouri. Statistics were gathered from a 2012 analysis of cities by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2017. Here’s an excellent article on that best explains and breaks down this trend towards taxation by ticket.

Dependent Cities using fines and fees to raise revenue
CITY STATE FINES AS PERCENT OF REVENUE

Saint Ann Missouri 30.40%
North Hills New York 25.60%
Clarkston Georgia 24.40%
Morrow Georgia 22.70%
Stone Mountain Georgia 22.10%
Doraville Georgia 20.60%
Cedarhurst New York 18.80%
Riverdale Georgie 18.70%
St. Johns Missouri 18.00%
Willow Springs Illinois 17.10%
Great Neck Plaza New York 15.80%
Riverdale Dark Maryland 15.70%
Sunset Utah 14.50%
Oakland Tennessee 14.50%
Bellafontaine Neighbors Missouri 14.40%
Millersville Tennessee 14%
College Park Maryland 13.60%
Ferguson Missouri 12.90%
Lake Dallas Texas 12.80%
Maryland Heights Missouri 12.60%
Snellville Georgia 12.40%
Gretna Louisiana 12.20%
Dardenne Prairie Missouri 11.90%
Laurel Maryland 11.80% $66,355 7.80% 29.50%
Los Fresnos Texas 11.50% $39,149 33.10% 1.20%
U.S. AVERAGE 1.40% $54,651 15.60% 78.30%

Municipal Court not immune from suit

May 21, 2018

Local municipal courts do not hold sovereign immunity against claims that its practices of traffic and vehicle violations were unconstitutional.

In November 2016, six motorists filed federal claims against a traffic and ticketing practice by the City of Maplewood did not hold constitutional muster.

The Plaintiff’s argument as described in the opinion: “They assert the City automatically issues an arrest warrant whenever someone ticketed for violating its traffic and vehicle laws fails to pay a fine or appear in court. Once arrested, the motorist is allegedly presented with a Hobson’s choice: Either pay a bond the amount of which was set in advance without any determination of his ability to pay it, or sit in jail possibly for days. The plaintiffs further contend that once a warrant has been issued, a motorist cannot avoid it by voluntarily returning to the municipal court or paying the outstanding fine, but must either submit to a custodial arrest or retain a lawyer to argue a motion before the municipal judge to vacate the warrant. If the court does not grant the motion, the motorist, whose presence in court the judge allegedly demands, will be arrested and jailed. Jail, the plaintiffs assert, is the means by which the City attempts to coerce the motorist into paying the bond to secure his release. The complaint indicates that the City’s policy or custom involves additional steps that can ensnare motorists in repeated cycles of arrest, jailing, and pressure to pay a bond irrespective of their ability to do so. The plaintiffs maintain that since their poverty makes it difficult if not impossible to pay the bond, the City thereby violates, among other things, their due-process and equal-protection rights.”

The City of Maplewood moved to dismiss the claim under the grounds of sovereign immunity.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the City of Maplewood enjoys no sovereign immunity against claims that its handling of traffic and vehicle violations is unconstitutional.

The ruling affirmed the district court’s ruling that the City is not immune from being sued under 42 U.S.C.1983 in a class action lawsuit that alleged the City’s policy of automatically issuing arrest warrants was unconstitutional. The practice involved issuing arrest warrants when a traffic ticket was not paid or when a person failed to appear in court.

In its holding, the court said that municipalities were not like States. Municipal courts do not enjoy a constitutionally protected immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

The court rejected other arguments the City made such as it was just maintaining a practice as an arm of the state; and that it was immune from suit because individuals identified as participating in the practices were personally immune from suit. The court explained that in the past a municipality has always been held liable for an unconstitutional practice even when no official was found to be personally liable for their actions under the custom or policy that was found unconstitutional.

MO Vehicle liability insurance coverage explained

March 12, 2018
PulledOver.com Traffic Law Resource Center

Insurance. It’s something we hate to pay for until we need it.

Mandatory Car Insurance

Each state has different requirements for automobile insurance. In Missouri, all motor vehicle operators and owners are required to have liability insurance, which covers the policyholder’s legal liability from injuries to others and damages to their property. The technical term for this is Financial Responsibility. Failure to have Proof of Insurance can result in a ticket and four points on your license. 

Minimum Insurance Coverage

Missouri has a minimum coverage requirement when it comes to liability insurance. Liability insurance covers you when injuries or property damage to others are a result of your actions and negligence. The minimum level of coverage required is $25,000 per person for bodily injury; $50,000 per crash for bodily injury; and $10,000 per crash for property damage. You also are required to have uninsured motorist coverage of $25,000 for bodily injury per person and $50,000 for bodily injury per crash. This last coverage is used in cases where another driver hits you but does not have insurance of their own or a driver hits you and drives away from the scene.

What Counts as Proof of Coverage?

To get people to buy coverage, the state mandates that vehicle owners show proof of insurance when it comes to registering their vehicle or renewing license plates.

When you go into the Missouri Department of Motor Vehicles, you have options to show your insurance coverage: a copy or original of your liability insurance policy; a paid insurance receipt showing the policy information; an ID card issued by the department when a surety bond, real estate bond, or security is filed with the department; a certificate of self-insurance from the Department; or a hand held electronic device showing your policy.

Other Insurance Options

Surprisingly, insurance coverage from an insurance company is not the only way to meet the states coverage requirements. There is self-insurance, which if you have 25 vehicles and you can show you will pay for damage caused by your vehicles. Or you can make a deposit of $60,000 cash with the State Treasurer, which will issue you a certificate of self-insurance.

Finally, another option is the use of Surety bond, Real Estate bond, Certificate of Deposit, or some other Negotiable Security. If you can show $60,000 (or $120,000 if a real estate bond) to the Department of Revenue, the department will issue you a certificate of self-insurance as proof of insurance.

In a nutshell, these are the basic ways to obtain the required amount of liability insurance in order to drive motor vehicles in Missouri. Commercial trucking drivers must meet different requirements of insurance coverage.