Tag Archives: traffic attorney st. louis county

Zipper merging = the safer way

June 27, 2017

The next time you drive up to a road construction site transportation experts want you to think “Zipper.”  So instead of merging into a single lane early as possible, experts state that it is better to drive to the end of the lane that has to merge and proceed to take turns merging in a zipper-like fashion.

The problem typically occurs when most drivers see the first “lane closed ahead” sign in a work zone and they immediately slow down and attempt to merge into the lane that will continue through the construction area. People assume that if they don’t merge early they no-one will allow them to merge later, or that it is impolite to pass up the line to merge closer to the work zone.  And sometimes driver’s will react angrily that another car has passed them up after they had been waiting in line first and for a longer time.  Some will even straddle the center line between the two lanes to prevent such attempts.

But the reality is that the passersbys are following proper protocol while the lane straddlers are in the wrong.  Zipper merging is the most efficient way for traffic to come together when the number of lanes has been reduced.

This early merging behavior often leads to dangerous lane switching, serious crashes and even road rage.

Experts state the benefits of zipper merging is that research shows it decreases the possibility of dangerous lane switching and other accidents that lead to road rage.  Don’t worry about being nice at the first sight of a construction zone.  Stay in your current lane up to the point of merging. Then alternate with other drivers to safely ease into the remaining open lane.

So the bottom line is that courtesy driving in the context of lane closures is to proceed to the end of the lane where you take turns merging into the open lane.  This will lead to less accidents and road rage.

Creve Coeur Municipal Court

May 23, 2017

Located in St. Louis County

Creve Coeur Municipal Court Jody Caswell, Court Clerk

300 N. New Ballas Rd

Creve Coeur, MO 63141

(314) 432-8844 (314) 432-1962 (facsimile)

http://www.creve-coeur.org/101/Municipal-Court

Prosecuting Attorney Stephanie Karr

Court Dates and Docket Dates 

Did you get a ticket in the municipality of Creve Coeur? 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 Creve Coeur Municipal for over 15 years. We work with the prosecuting attorney to get your ticket reduced. Often we are successful getting the ticket amended to Other Parking Violation instead of a moving violation. 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.

Creve Coeur MIP Defense

  • Our Creve Coeur MIP lawyers handle MIP defense, where the object is keeping your record clean and your driver license from being suspended

Creve Coeur DWI Defense

  • Our Creve Coeur DWI attorneys handle drunk driving defense, where your driver license and your freedom are at stake. In 2017, Creve Coeur filed 67 alcohol or drug related charges.

Let our Creve Coeur Traffic Lawyers start helping you today. Contact Us

Creve Coeur Traffic Court Information

This page contains Court information Links for Creve Coeur, Missouri.

MO Speeding Ticket Lawyers | MO DWI Lawyers | MO MIP Lawyers

Missouri Speeding Ticket Defense | Missouri MIP Defense | Missouri DWI Defense

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.”

Court explains annual DWI breath tester calibration requirement

January 9, 2017

The Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District handed down an opinion that better explains the calibration of breath testing devices used in DWI cases. The court ruled that the annual certification of the device, which regulations state it be done “annually,” must be taken literally. Annually means within 365 days. The Court went on to say that the purpose of the annual test is to make sure that the BAC tester is accurate when used. The case is MICHAEL RAY SLEDD, Petitioner-Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent-Appellant. Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District – SD34272

Any other explanation such as how close to the use of the tester was the simulator certified, or how close to trial for an alcohol-related offense was the simulator certified is irrelevant. The court said that the circuit court erred when it excluded results of a breath test based on the certification of the stimulator. The case was remanded to admit the test results, then determine their credibility, and issue a new judgment.

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

December 5, 2016

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

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

1) How sobriety checkpoints are conducted;

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

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

4) Whether drivers licenses are revoked; and

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

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

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

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

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

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