 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Halter v. Director of Revenue11/23/1999
ant a person of reasonable caution to believe an offense has been committed. Guccionne v. Director of Revenue, 988 S.W.2d 649, 654 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999). The determination of whether a police officer has probable cause to arrest "must be made in relation to circumstances as they appear to a prudent, cautious, and trained police officer." Id.
Here, the police officer stopped Driver's vehicle as it left the scene of a reported disturbance. The arresting officer smelled alcohol on Driver's breath. After performing field sobriety tests, the result showed Driver was intoxicated. On the Alcohol Influence Report, which was admitted at trial, the officer noted Driver had bloodshot eyes, was swaying, and had a poor ability to follow instructions.
The record establishes that Director satisfied its prima facie burden of showing the arresting officer had probable cause to arrest Driver.
In addition, the issue focusing on the application of 19 CSR 25-30.051 is identical to the issue addressed in our decision in Blechle v. Director of Revenue handed down simultaneously with this case. As in Blechle, we find that the certificate of analysis introduced at the trial de novo complies with the requirements of the emergency version of 19 CSR 25-30.051 in effect on that date. The terms of the emergency version do not even require a certificate of analysis.
The record does not indicate, however, that Driver had an opportunity to present evidence. Under the circumstances we remand for further proceedings. See Hackmann v. Director of Revenue, 991 S.W.2d 751, 753 (Mo. App. E.D. 1999).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
|