Tag Archives: tickets

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.

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.

 

 

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.

How to avoid a ticket and what to do if you get pulled over

April 23, 2014

Below are tips from the National Motorist Association on how to avoid a ticket an/or what to do if you are pulled over.

1.  Don’t draw attention to yourself on the road. 

  • don’t hang out in the left lane
  • keep pace with traffic
  • stay within 5 to 10 mph of the posted limit, particularly after dark
  • don’t exceed a safe driving speed in bad weather conditions (even if you are under the posted limit, you can get a moving violation for driving faster than conditions allow)

2.  Be prepared and know your surroundings. 

  • keep your driver’s license, vehicle registration, insurance, and state inspection verification (if required) up to date
  • be aware of the traffic around you; a slowdown may indicate a speed trap or accident ahead
  • be vigilant driving through small towns, particularly those near an interstate or where a major state highway goes directly through town
  • be alert for sudden speed limit reductions, for school zones, and for work zones
  • plan your trip with SpeedTrap.org and RoadBlock.org

3.  Activate your turn signal and find a safe place to pull as far out of the traffic stream as possible before turning off your engine. If you are in an isolated area and are uncertain about the identity of the person(s) who signaled you to stop, turn on your flashers and drive at reduced speed to a well-lit, well-populated area before stopping. Ask to see the officer’s ID before unlocking your door or rolling down your window.

 4.  Keep your hands visible as the officer approaches.

 5.  Have your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance readily available.

 6.  Keep private items (cell phones, mobile radar detectors) out of view but don’t create a flurry of activity while stuffing them into the glove compartment or under your seat. The officer will see that and immediately become suspicious.

 7.  Try to remain courteous and calm, even though it is a stressful situation. This improves your chances of just getting a warning. Remember though: The officer is not your friend in this situation. Becoming chatty, which many people do under pressure, is not recommended.

8.  If you start debating the officer, you almost certainly will get a ticket. Don’t be aggressive, but just as importantly, do not be totally passive or submissive.

9. Do not incriminate yourself, not even a little bit. Every admission is duly recorded and will be used against you.

10. You are not required to answer questions about why you were stopped or how fast you were going, but if you do, be polite and and keep your answers short. 

  • “Do you know why I stopped you?”–“No, I don’t.”(Nothing more or less.)
  • “Do you know how fast you were going?”–“Is that why you stopped me, officer?” (Curious, not sarcastic, tone.)  If the officer persists, simply respond with “Please tell me how fast you think I was going.” Don’t answer “yes” or “yes, within the speed limit;” those responses will trigger repeated questions about your speed or your knowledge of the posted limit.

11. In the case of a DUI stop, any admission–even “I just had one beer” or “one glass of wine”–can be used as an excuse to arrest and test you for sobriety.

12. If the officer asks to search your vehicle, politely refuse unless he can produce a warrant. Never give permission for a search, even if you believe you have nothing to hide.

13. If the officer asks you to perform a field sobriety test, politely refuse. If he insists, do not physically resist but be sure to repeat your refusal of permission, preferably within range of the police car’s dash-cam.

14. After each refusal, ask “Am I free to leave now?”

15. Once a ticket is issued, it is in the system so don’t bother pleading your case roadside.

16. Before leaving the site of the alleged offense, gather information (if you can do so safely) and take some notes that can be valuable for your defense: 

  • pinpoint your specific location (intersection, mile marker, etc.)
  • write down the license plate number and/or car number of the police vehicle
  • make sure you have the ticketing officer’s name and the name of any other officer involved with the issuance of your ticket
  • ask the officer where he/she was located when first observing your vehicle
  • note the weather, road, and traffic conditions at the time of the stop
  • take photos of the area including traffic signs that are pertinent to the charges against you

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.

Supreme Court declines to hear red light camera appeals

February 26, 2014

The Supreme Court of Missouri has declined to review the red-light camera appeals from Kansas City, Creve Coeur and Florissant. These requests had been filed by the cities and American Traffic Solutions, Inc the provider of the cameras.

The Appellate Courts had issued concerns that the ordinances conflicted with state law requiring the issuance of points for moving violations. The cases will be remanded back where the cities can attempt to provide justification for the ordinances.

The Supreme Court has not addressed the recent Ellisville, Arnold or City of St. Louis rulings regarding traffic cameras.

Clayton, MO Traffic Court

March 19, 2012

Clayton Traffic Lawyers

Did you get a ticket in Clayton, Missouri?

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

Clayton Speeding Ticket Traffic Law Defense

Did you receive a Speeding ticket in Clayton?

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

Clayton MIP Lawyers

Did you receive a Minor in Possession ticket?

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

Clayton DWI Criminal Defense Attorneys

Did you receive a ticket for Driving While Intoxicated?

Our Clayton 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 Clayton traffic law attorneys start helping you today. Contact Us

This page contains Court information Links for Clayton, Missouri.

Clayton Municipal Court

10 S. Brentwood
Clayton, MO 63105

Tel: (314) 290-8441
Fax: (314) 863-0295

City of Clayton, MO website.

For more information regarding your case visit municourt.net.

Judge
Hon. Joseph Dulle

Prosecuting Attorney
Darold E. Crotzer, Jr, Esq.

Court Administrator
Elricka Jones

Court Dates and Docket Dates
Traffic: 1st and 3rd Wednesday of every month at 6:00 P.M. Doors open at 5:30
Housing: 2nd Thursday of every month at 9:00 A.M.

For information on your ticket, click here.

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

  1. Pay Traffic Tickets Online at https://www.ipaycourt.com/clayton.  Parking tickets can be paid here.
  2. Mail payments in the form of check or money order only made payable to City of Clayton to: Municipal Court
    City of Clayton
    10 S. Brentwood Blvd
    Clayton, MO  63105
  3. Pay fines in person with cash, check, money order, MasterCard or Visa.  Please note that court fine payments must be received before 4:00 p.m. on the day of court.