Tag Archives: traffic attorney Missouri

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.”

Appellate Court rules on breathalyzer certification check

April 26, 2017

A recent Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District decision reversed and remanded the lower court by holding that a trial court erred in excluding the test result from evidence because the Director of Revenue laid a proper foundation for its admission.

The Department of Health and Senior Services regulation 19 CSR 25-30.051(4) requires annual certification of any breath alcohol simulator used to perform a maintenance check on an evidential breath analyzer. The Court went on to say that to lay a foundation for the admission of a breath test result at trial, the Director only need submit proof the simulator was certified at the time of the relevant maintenance check.  In this case, that check was performed within 35 days prior to the Driver’s breath test. The Court said the Director does not have to submit proof of certification from any other year for purposes of admissibility.

The Director of Revenue had appealed from the judgment of the trial court reinstating the driving privileges of Justin Scott Hickenbotham.  The Director argued on appeal that the trial court erred in reinstating the driver’s driving privileges because the court erred in excluding from evidence the breath test result showing Driver’s blood alcohol content exceeded the legal limit.

The opinion was written by Judges Sherri B. Sullivan and Roy L. Richter.  Judge Colleen Dolan concurred.  Rachel Jones was the attorney for Appellant.  Attorneys for Respondent were Chastidy Dillon-Amelung and John F. Newsham.  The case was Justin Scott Hickenbotham v. Department of Revenue.

The Court referenced several previous cases in its analysis and stated the following: “Sellenriek’s and Kern’s reasoning that the only relevant evidence is that which demonstrates compliance when the breath test was administered is still good law and applies in this case. See Harrell, 488 S.W.3d at 208. As with the maintenance check provision, implicit in 19 CSR 25-30.051(4) is that a breath analyzer simulator certified at the time of the relevant maintenance check is capable of accurately calibrating the breath analyzer. Carey v. Dir. of Rev., —- S.W.3d —- (Mo. App. E.D. March 28, 2017); see Sellenriek, 826 S.W.2d at 340. Nothing in the regulations suggests the accuracy of the simulator at the time of the maintenance check is dependent on the certification of the simulator in prior or subsequent years. See Sellenriek, 826 S.W.2d at 340; Harrell, 488 S.W.3d at 208. “The Director need not prove the existence of certifications before the one in effect at the time of the relevant maintenance check in order to comply with 19 CSR 25-30.051(4).” Carey, —- S.W.3d —-. Instead, a foundation for the admission of the breath test result is laid when the Director presents evidence the simulator was certified at the time of the relevant maintenance check. Harrell, 488 S.W.3d at 208.

“Evidence of whether the simulator was properly certified in prior or subsequent years

goes to the weight of the breath test result, not its admissibility. See Kern, 936 S.W.2d at 862. Furthermore, Driver’s interpretation of 19 CSR 25-30.051(4) would mean a simulator not certified in 2013 or any subsequent year is effectively unusable and fails to account for simulators brought into use any time after 2013, an illogical reading leading to irrational results.”

The Court went on to say that in the present case: “The Director laid a sufficient foundation for admission of the result of the breath test administered in 2015 by submitting the 2015 simulator certification. The Director’s point on appeal is granted. Because the court did not make a finding as to whether Trooper Ganime had probable cause to arrest Driver, the cause is remanded for additional findings by the trial court.”

A $3.00 court fee applied to traffic tickets now under scrutiny

April 4, 2017

A $3.00 court fee charged to municipal court tickets that funds sheriff’s pensions is under scrutiny in Missouri.

Missouri’s municipal courts began in 2014 to charge a $3.00 court fee to defendants to help fund the Sheriffs’ Retirement Fund. However, some judges and legal scholars are questioning whether the charge is constitutional because the sheriff’s department does not operate at the municipal level.

As many retirement funds for government workers were having trouble receiving funding in Missouri and other states, that has not been the case for the sheriff’s fund. The $3.00 charge ended up increasing the retirement fund significantly, up more than $10 million in assets between 2012 and 2015.

Many sheriff employees throughout the state, particularly in rural areas, receive low wages and depend upon the fund’s pension to live off of after retirement.

The attorney general at the time, Chris Koster, issued three opinions that indicated the $3.00 court fee that funds sheriff’s pensions should be applied to the state’s municipal courts. The Missouri Supreme Court, which prior to this third opinion issued, had not approved the fee to be used at the municipal court level. But this last time in 20163 the court approved it, adding the fee to traffic tickets and other tickets at the municipal level in 2014. The charge applied to all municipal courts except for St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis.

Approximately 362 of the 608 cities, villages and towns in Missouri that have a municipal court may be refusing to charge the $3.00 sheriffs fun charge to municipal court cases. This now has the Sheriffs’ Retirement System seeking help to the municipal level governments to charge the fee and pass on the money.

C.F. Barnes, executive director of the retirement system, sent letters on March 6 to Circuit Clerks in 102 Missouri counties, asking them to enforce the Missouri Supreme Court’s August 2013 order to apply the surcharge to court cases.

This is setting up a fight between the Supreme Court, municipal courts and the Sheriffs’ Retirement Fund. Stay tuned as this story progresses.

Mo. looking to educate drivers on how to interact with police

March 28, 2017

To avoid violent and sometimes deadly encounters between drivers and the police, the Missouri legislature is proposing bills that would help educate both motorists and the police on proper conduct.

The state of Illinois recently passed a bill that sets out a set of rules of engagement for drivers and the police to follow. A similar bill in Virginia is set to be passed.  There are also a few states considering doing the same: Mississippi, North Carolina, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

The idea is to make traffic stops and police interactions more transparent by educating both sides on how to behave. The so called “Rules of the Road” adopted in Illinois this February is a model for other states when it comes to the details of proper and safe driver behavior that can help reduce the stress during a police encounter.

In Missouri, leaders want to include the information as part of the driver’s examination, and even have suggested making a video that would have to be watched. 

The Illinois guidelines suggest the following:

If your driver’s license or insurance card are in the glove box or under the seat, wait until the officer arrives and inform him or her about it and ask permission to retrieve them.

Be sure to keep both hands on the steering wheel in plain view and leave them there until you are instructed otherwise.

Never exit the vehicle unless you are asked to do so.  Getting out of your vehicle gives the impression that you are being aggressive and could be a potential threat to the officer.

Other suggestions are to always be polite and cooperative and avoid arguing the officer.  You can always fight your case in court if you feel your rights have been violated. 

If you are concerned that the officer may be a fake officer, roll down the window a little and tell the officer and state that you would like to go to a public place to conduct the stop.  Most officers will allow this unless they have a reasonable suspicion that you could be intoxicated or impaired in some way.

Finally, when stopped, turn off the engine, so the officer knows you will not try to take off and potentially hit him.  Then turn on the internal lights and open the window partway before the officer gets to your window.  And, of course again, keep your hands on the wheel.

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.

Court of Appeals strikes down ordinance establishing new police standards

January 23, 2017

A recent Eastern District of Missouri Court of Appeals ruling struck down an ordinance establishing new police standards in St. Louis County.

St. Louis County had enacted an ordinance authorizing the County Executive to impose countywide minimum police standards.  However, the cities affected by that ordinance filed a petition to have it invalidated. 

The trial court had ruled that the county had no authority to enact the ordinance.  The Court of Appeals affirmed. 

The reasoning was as follows: The Missouri Constitution provides that certain exercises of legislative authority be subject to a county-wide vote. At the same time, the state’s constitution also allows a county charter to authorize any action permitted by statute, including public health standards.  The Court says standards of police conduct fall within public safety and not public health as public health is limited to preventing disease.  Furthermore, the Court held that the county’s authority to legislate police conduct standards does not depend on the proposition that low standards harm residents. 

The Court said: “The County’s reliance on information presented to the County Council as to the impact of this ordinance on public health does not aid its argument for how this was a valid exercise of authority under Section 192.300.  The positive impact that improved law enforcement may have on the public – including the extent to which it improves the community’s physical and mental well-being – is simply not what was meant by “enhance public health” in Section 192.300.  To hold otherwise would be to broaden the scope of authority beyond what the legislature intended by granting counties the power to make “additional health rules” in Section 192.300.  Thus, this Ordinance was not a valid exercise of the County’s authority conferred by that statute.”

Kirksville Municipal Court Traffic Information

September 8, 2012

Kirksville Municipal Court
Adair County

General Information:
Phoebe Powell Herrin, Municipal Judge

Linda Sandstrom, Court Clerk
201 S. Franklin
City Hall
Kirksville, MO 63501
(660) 627-1237 
(660) 627-7941(facsimile)
http://www.kirksvillecity.com/
Hours: 8:00 – 5:00 

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.”