Recent Cases Which May Be Helpful In Your Defense Of A Missouri DWI/DUI

1. Callendar v. Director of Revenue: an arrest is not effectuated merely by an officer telling a suspect that he or she is under arrest one or more times, and a driver must be under valid arrest at the time a refusal to a chemical test is given, or legally there is no refusal.
   
   
2. Cox v. Director of Revenue: Regarding the issue of 'Coperating' a vehicle, once the key is in the ignition, and the engine is running, an officer may have probable cause to believe that the person sitting behind the steering wheel is operating the vehicle, even if that person is sleeping or unconscious. Conversely, if there is not a key in the ignition or the engine is not running, there is no operation.
   
   
3. State v. Thurston: There was insufficient evidence to support a conviction of DWI where there was no evidence that the vehicle's engine was running, that any of the truck's lights were on, that the key was in the ignition, that Defendant was ever behind the wheel, that the engine or passenger compartment was warm, that Defendant admitted driving the vehicle, that the vehicle was registered to Defendant, that Defendant was seen attempting to drive the truck, or any other indication that Defendant was physically driving or operating the motor vehicle.
   
   
4. Morris v. Director of Revenue: the Director, in order to suspend or revoke a license, must prove: (1) the driver—not someone believed to be the driver\0x2014was arrested on probable cause that he or she was committing an alcohol-related driving offense, and (2) the driver—not someone believed to be the driver\0x2014was driving with an excessive B.A.C..
   
   
5. State v. Rose: unless a foundation is laid that establishes the witness's ability to correlate an Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus score with a BAC level, such testimony is unacceptable and shall be inadmissible. HGN evidence is not properly admissible to correlate a Defendant's performance to a precise BAC level. This case found that even though the officer properly administered the HGN test, the officer's twenty hours of training in HGN did not establish his ability to correlate the HGN test to the driver's specific BAC.
   
   
6. Mount v. Director of Revenue: In the context of the implied consent law, if a driver qualifies a refusal to submit to chemical testing on consulting with counsel but receives no reasonable opportunity to do so, no refusal results.
   
   
7. Hunter v. Director of Revenue: a driver must be given twenty minutes to contact an attorney after he or she has been advised of the Implied Consent Law, but the driver must request counsel and does not need to be advised of the right to speak with an attorney.
   
   
8. State v. Hill: The Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test is admissible as evidence of intoxication, but the officer administering the test to the driver must be adequately trained a minimum of eight hours on administering the HGN test.
   
   
9. Duffy v. Director of Revenue: evidence from a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus field sobriety test is admissible for purposes of addressing probable cause, but if the test is not properly administered or scored, it is not admissible for any purpose.
   
   
10. United States v. Horn: An officer may testify as a lay witness to his opinion that a defendant is intoxicated based on the officer's observations of the defendant's performance on field sobriety tests, but that he or she may not testify as an expert witness because the NHTSA tests are not “scientifically reliable” under Daubert and may not be used as direct evidence of intoxication, i.e. the officer may not attempt to use the results of the tests to correlate a BAC score.
    
    
11. State v. Lasworth: The objective of the HGN test is to discriminate between drivers above and below the statutory blood alcohol limit (BAC), not to measure driving impairment, as the HGN test has not been scientifically validated as a direct measure of impairment.
    
    
12. Edmisten v. Director of Revenue: The Missouri Supreme Court held that improperly administered field sobriety tests must be disregarded in making a probable cause determination to arrest a driver.
    
    
13. Knowles v. Iowa: Officers may not search beyond what is necessary for officer safety in a routine traffic stop.
    
    
14. U.S. v. Mitchell: A defendant retains his priveledge against self-incrimination through sentencing.
    
    
15. Florida v. J.L.: A seizure can not be made based on an uncorroborated anonymous tip.
    
    
    Return to Missouri Drunk Driving Defense Information front page