Tag Archives: traffic attorney st. louis

Missouri given “F” grade for driving safety

November 27, 2017

Have you heard Missouri is considered one of the worst states for road safety? That’s according to a recent report from the National Safety Commission.

Missouri received a grade of an “F” for road safety, which was one of nine states to receive the lowest grade. Overall the state was ranked 49th. The grades were based on each state’s statistics related to failure to wear seatbelts, distracted driving incidents, speeding tickets, and alcohol-impaired driving (DWI’s).

Partly resulting in such a low grade is Missouri’s seatbelt and texting laws. In Missouri, a driver cannot be pulled over just for not wearing a seatbelt. There must be a secondary offense observed, such as speeding, following too close, erratic driving, invalid license, etc. Therefore, many drivers are not buckled up and pay the price in injuries or even death. As to texting, only drivers under age 21 and commercial drivers can be ticketed for texting and driving. Those 21 and over will not be ticketed. This has led to many accidents among the 21 year and older group.

November and December months are considered the most dangerous driving months because of the increased number of deaths usually recorded. You can expect the state highway patrol to have extra law enforcement out on the roads during these months. Remember to buckle up, use designated drivers or ride services if drinking, and to drive safely this holiday season.

Missouri DWI laws and treatment courts

November 21, 2017

Ever wonder about the underlying mechanics of how Missouri’s DWI laws have been put together? For the answer to that question, you need to look at House Bill 1695 that went into effect August 28, 2010.

The bill changed the laws for repeat alcohol offenders and drivers with high blood-alcohol levels. It also affected how a person qualifies for driving privileges. Other changes included the following:

• Creation of a centralized reporting database that tracks all driving-while-impaired offenses, from arrest to disposition.

• Prevents municipal courts from hearing an intoxication-related case if the offender has two or more “intoxicated-related” offenses, or two or more “alcohol-related” offenses.

• DWI courts were established to facilitate treatment for repeat offenders and drivers with high blood-alcohol levels.

• Establishes criteria for qualifying participants and graduates of a DWI court program to obtain a court-ordered limited driving privilege.

• Prohibits a first alcohol-related driving offense from being expunged from a person’s record if the person has another alcohol-related contact on record, or another alcohol-related action pending.

For more information, here is the link to the Department of Revenue to find out more: http://dor.mo.gov/faq/drivers/dwi.php. The DOR website offers a Q&A section that answers many questions you may have. Here are a few:

Can a DWI Court grant me a limited driving privilege when I participate in or graduate from its program, if I have more than one alcohol-related traffic offense on my record?
Yes. Section 302.309.3(9) now allows a DWI Court to grant a limited driving privilege to a participant or graduate of the program who may otherwise be ineligible for limited driving privilege. If you are granted a limited driving privilege by the DWI Court, the Department of Revenue will update your driving record to show the limited driving privilege.

I’ve heard that if my case is in a DWI Court, and I plead guilty to or am found guilty of a first-time driving while intoxicated offense, and my blood alcohol concentration is .15%, I would not be eligible for a suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) for the alcohol-related traffic offense. Is this true?
No. In a county in which there is a DWI court, you may receive an SIS so long as:
•You are placed on probation for a minimum of two years; and
•You successfully complete the DWI court or court-ordered treatment program.
What will the DWI Court program consist of? The program will combine judicial supervision, drug testing, continuous alcohol monitoring, substance abuse traffic offender program compliance, and treatment.

Is there a fee to participate in a DWI court program? A DWI Court may assess you with any and all necessary costs of your participation.

When is the earliest I can be issued a limited driving privilege if I am a participant in or graduate of the program? You must complete a minimum of 45 days of participation in the program and be approved by the DWI Court.

Am I required to have an SR-22 insurance filing if a DWI Court has issued me a limited driving privilege?
Yes. You are required to maintain an SR-22 insurance filing for the duration of your limited driving privilege.

Am I required to have an ignition interlock device in my car if a DWI Court has issued me a limited driving privilege? Yes, if you have more than one alcohol-related enforcement contact.

If I have a first alcohol-related driving offense on my record that is over 10 years old and now I have a new one pending in court, can I have the old alcohol-related offense expunged from my record? No. The new law prohibits the Department of Revenue from expunging the alcohol-related driving offense from your record because you have another alcohol-related offense pending.

The law balancing safety v. excessive regulation-punishment

November 3, 2017

Ever wonder where cities get their authority to implement traffic laws? In Missouri, the state legislature has passed multiple statutes related to traffic. One statute, 304.010, sets out maximum speed limits and penalties, and grants authority to cities to set those limits.

One provision, states that cities, towns and villages may regulate the speed of vehicles on state roads and highways within their cities’, towns’ or villages’ corporate limits. To do so, they must pass an ordinance with the approval of the state highways and transportation commission.

The statute says that if there is any reduction of speed in these cities, towns or villages, they must be designed to expedite the flow of traffic on state roads or highways to be consistent with public safety. That basically means the commission can declare any cities’ ordinance void if it finds that such ordinance is not designed to expedite traffic flow, and it was primarily designed to produce revenue for the city that enacted the ordinance.

The bottom line, thankfully, is that cities do have statewide oversight when it comes to regulating traffic within their boundaries. This helps us find that balance between public safety versus excessive regulations and punishment.

The statute is below if you want to learn more:

304.010. Definitions — maximum speed limits — cities, towns, villages, certain counties, may set speed limit, how set — slower speeds set, when — violations, penalty. — 1. As used in this section, the following terms mean:
(1) “Expressway”, a divided highway of at least ten miles in length with four or more lanes which is not part of the federal interstate system of highways which has crossovers or accesses from streets, roads or other highways at the same grade level as such divided highway;
(2) “Freeway”, a limited access divided highway of at least ten miles in length with four or more lanes which is not part of the federal interstate system of highways which does not have any crossovers or accesses from streets, roads or other highways at the same grade level as such divided highway within such ten miles of divided highway;
(3) “Rural interstate”, that part of the federal interstate highway system that is not located in an urban area;
(4) “Urbanized area”, an area of fifty thousand population at a density at or greater than one thousand persons per square mile.
2. Except as otherwise provided in this section, the uniform maximum speed limits are and no vehicle shall be operated in excess of the speed limits established pursuant to this section:

(1) Upon the rural interstates and freeways of this state, seventy miles per hour;
(2) Upon the rural expressways of this state, sixty-five miles per hour;
(3) Upon the interstate highways, freeways or expressways within the urbanized areas of this state, sixty miles per hour;
(4) All other roads and highways in this state not located in an urbanized area and not provided for in subdivisions (1) to (3) of this subsection, sixty miles per hour;
(5) All other roads provided for in subdivision (4) of this subsection shall not include any state two-lane road which is identified by letter. Such lettered roads shall not exceed fifty-five miles per hour unless set at a higher speed as established by the department of transportation, except that no speed limit shall be set higher than sixty miles per hour;
(6) For the purposes of enforcing the speed limit laws of this state, it is a rebuttable presumption that the posted speed limit is the legal speed limit.

3. On any state road or highway where the speed limit is not set pursuant to a local ordinance, the highways and transportation commission may set a speed limit higher or lower than the uniform maximum speed limit provided in subsection 2 of this section, if a higher or lower speed limit is recommended by the department of transportation. The department of public safety, where it believes for safety reasons, or to expedite the flow of traffic a higher or lower speed limit is warranted, may request the department of transportation to raise or lower such speed limit, except that no speed limit shall be set higher than seventy miles per hour.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 304.120 or any other provision of law to the contrary, cities, towns and villages may regulate the speed of vehicles on state roads and highways within such cities’, towns’ or villages’ corporate limits by ordinance with the approval of the state highways and transportation commission. Any reduction of speed in cities, towns or villages shall be designed to expedite the flow of traffic on such state roads and highways to the extent consistent with public safety. The commission may declare any ordinance void if it finds that such ordinance is:
(1) Not primarily designed to expedite traffic flow; and
(2) Primarily designed to produce revenue for the city, town or village which enacted such ordinance.
If an ordinance is declared void, the city, town or village shall have any future proposed ordinance approved by the highways and transportation commission before such ordinance may take effect.
5. The county commission of any county of the second, third or fourth classification may set the speed limit or the weight limit or both the speed limit and the weight limit on roads or bridges on any county, township or road district road in the county and, with the approval of the state highways and transportation commission, on any state road or highway not within the limits of any incorporated city, town or village, lower than the uniform maximum speed limit as provided in subsection 2 of this section where the condition of the road or the nature of the area requires a lower speed. The maximum speed limit set by the county commission of any county of the second, third, or fourth classification for any road under the commission’s jurisdiction shall not exceed fifty-five miles per hour if such road is properly marked by signs indicating such speed limit. If the county commission does not mark the roads with signs indicating the speed limit, the speed limit shall be fifty miles per hour. The commission shall send copies of any order establishing a speed limit or weight limit on roads and bridges on a county, township or road district road in the county to the chief engineer of the state department of transportation, the superintendent of the state highway patrol and to any township or road district maintaining roads in the county. After the roads have been properly marked by signs indicating the speed limits and weight limits set by the county commission, the speed limits and weight limits shall be of the same effect as the speed limits provided for in subsection 1 of this section and shall be enforced by the state highway patrol and the county sheriff as if such speed limits and weight limits were established by state law.
6. The county commission of any county of the second, third, or fourth classification may by ordinance set a countywide speed limit on roads within unincorporated areas of any county, township, or road district in the county and may establish reasonable speed regulations for motor vehicles within the limit of such county. No person who is not a resident of such county and who has not been within the limits thereof for a continuous period of more than forty-eight hours shall be convicted of a violation of such ordinances, unless it is shown by competent evidence that there was posted at the place where the boundary of such county road enters the county a sign displaying in black letters not less than four inches high and one inch wide on a white background the speed fixed by such county so that such signs may be clearly seen by operators and drivers from their vehicles upon entering such county. The commission shall send copies of any order establishing a countywide speed limit on a county, township, or road district road in the county to the chief engineer of the Missouri department of transportation, the superintendent of the state highway patrol, and to any township or road district maintaining roads in the county. After the boundaries of the county roads entering the county have been properly marked by signs indicating the speed limits set by the county commission, the speed limits shall be of the same effect as the speed limits provided for in subsection 1 of this section and shall be enforced by the state highway patrol and the county sheriff as if such speed limits were established by state law.
7. All road signs indicating speed limits or weight limits shall be uniform in size, shape, lettering and coloring and shall conform to standards established by the department of transportation.
8. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to alter any speed limit set below fifty-five miles per hour by any ordinance of any county, city, town or village of the state adopted before March 13, 1996.
9. The speed limits established pursuant to this section shall not apply to the operation of any emergency vehicle as defined in section 304.022.
10. A violation of the provisions of this section shall not be construed to relieve the parties in any civil action on any claim or counterclaim from the burden of proving negligence or contributory negligence as the proximate cause of any accident or as the defense to a negligence action.
11. Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a class C misdemeanor, unless such person was exceeding the posted speed limit by twenty miles per hour or more then it is a class B misdemeanor.

 

Foundation requirements for prior convictions in DWI

September 4, 2017

A recent Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District opinion shows the importance of prosecutors laying a proper evidentiary foundation to introduce evidence of prior convictions in driving while intoxicated cases.

 

In the case of State v. Gary Lee Pylypczuk, following a jury trial in the circuit court of Clay County, Mr. Pylypczuk appealed his conviction of driving while intoxicated.  The DWI was in violation of § 577.010. Pylypczuk argued that the circuit court improperly admitted evidence of his status as a persistent intoxication-related traffic offender because the evidence was not properly authenticated.

 

The court reversed the sentence imposed by the Court and remanded the case for jury sentencing.

 

In its holding, the Appellate Court stated that Section 577.023 does not allow records from the Missouri Uniform Law Enforcement System’s Driving While Intoxicated Tracking System (DWITS) to be admitted to prove a prior conviction in the absence of any foundation.

 

The Appellate Court went on to hold that the State failed to lay an adequate foundation to support admission of evidence of Pylypczuk’s prior convictions, and that without evidence of prior convictions, Pylypczuk could not be sentenced as a persistent intoxication-related traffic offender.

 

The Appellate Court stated in its opinion: “Because Exhibit 2 lacked adequate authentication, it was not admissible and the circuit court erred in admitting it. Furthermore, because Exhibit 2 was used to establish one of the two convictions rendering Pylypczuk a persistent offender, he was prejudiced by the erroneous admission. We, therefore, reverse the finding of the circuit court that Pylypczuk is a persistent offender and the resulting sentence and remand for jury sentencing as a class B misdemeanor offender.”

 

The Special Division Judges were Zel M. Fischer, Special Judge, Presiding, and Karen King

Mitchell and Cynthia L. Martin. Judge King Mitchell wrote the opinion.

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.