 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ford v. Director of Revenue2/14/2000
Blake Edward Ford ("Respondent") was arrested by a Sikeston, Missouri police officer for driving while intoxicated when he was found passed out behind the wheel of his car. A breath test demonstrated that he had a blood alcohol content of .15% and, although he was never convicted for driving while intoxicated, his driving privileges were suspended by the Director of Revenue ("Director") pursuant to Section 302.505, RSMo 1994. Respondent filed a petition three years later against the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the Department, the City of Sikeston and the Scott County prosecuting attorney seeking to have all records relating to the arrest and the Department's administrative action expunged. His petition sought relief pursuant to Section 610.122, RSMo Cum.Supp. 1998, "and in accord with the equitable authority granted to Courts of general jurisdiction within the State of Missouri." Director filed a motion to dismiss noting that there was no statutory authority for the expungement sought. That motion was overruled.
At the hearing on the petition, Director disputed the trial court's authority to order the expungement of the Department's administrative records of the suspension, noting that there is no statutory authority authorizing that action under these facts. The only witness was Respondent who testified that he had gone through alcohol rehabilitation, and he answered affirmatively to the following question:
s you and I were discussing ten years down the road this administrative mark on your record might not be a big concern, but right now it is there for everyone to see, potential employers and your insurance company to see, and you are asking that the incident that happened to you when you were seventeen be expunged from your records so you can have a clean start?
The trial court ordered all defendants to delete all records of the arrest, confinement and the administrative action. In doing so, it noted that Respondent was seventeen years old at the time of his arrest, and it found that it was "well satisfied that [Respondent] ha rehabilitated himself and ha been able to avoid consumption of alcohol for a period of time so as to convince the Court of [Respondent's] maturity." It also found that the records of Respondent's arrest and those relating to the administrative suspension indicating an "alcohol related enforcement contact [were] detrimental to the [Respondent], [were] detrimental to [Respondent's] employment and education prospects, that there no adequate remedy at law, and that irreparable harm [would] continue to come to the [Respondent] by the presence of these records."
Noting that its jurisdiction to order the expungment had been questioned, the trial court referred to the fact that under Article 5, Section 14 of the Missouri Constitution, the Circuit Courts of this State have original jurisdiction over all cases and matters, civil and criminal , including equitable powers. It also noted Section 1.010, RSMo 1994, which declares that the Common Law of England, except where repugnant or inconsistent with the United States Constitution, the Missouri Constitution or the Missouri statutes, is the rule of action and decision. It held, inter alia:
The Court notes that Missouri Statute 610.122 provides for the expungement of any record of arrest, if it is determined that the arrest was based on false information if other listed conditions exist. While this Statute is not applicable here, Subsection 5 states that the Court may act, provided no civil action is pending related to the arrest or the records sought to be expunged. This Statute, enacted by the Legislature, does not prohibit other methods of expungement.
Th
Page 1 2 3 4 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|