 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Storck v. Director of Revenue10/30/2001
irector has the burden of proof and the failure to satisfy this burden will result in the reinstatement of driver's driving privileges. Wilson v. Director of Revenue, 35 S.W.3d 923, 926 (Mo.App.W.D. 2001). If the trial court finds that one or more of these circumstances did not take place, the trial court is required to order the director to reinstate the driving privileges pursuant to section 577.041.5. Pendergrass, 4 S.W.3d at 601. This court gives deference to the trial court's findings unless the evidence is uncontroverted and the case is virtually one of admitting the facts or when the evidence is not in conflict. Id.
Reasonable grounds to arrest driver for driving while intoxicated is virtually synonymous with probable cause to arrest driver. Myers v. Director of Revenue, 9 S.W.3d 25, 27 (Mo.App.E.D. 1999). In determining whether there were reasonable grounds to arrest driver for driving while intoxicated, the trial court must evaluate the situation from the viewpoint of a cautious, trained, and prudent police officer at the time of the arrest. Id.
In this case, the trial court found that officer did not have probable cause to arrest driver for driving while intoxicated. Pursuant to section 577.041.5, this single finding, if supported by the evidence, is sufficient to reinstate driver's driving privileges. This court must determine whether the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient for the trial court to determine officer did not have probable cause to arrest driver.
The trial court received into evidence officer's report, which was controverted by the live testimony of driver. Officer's report indicates he arrested driver based upon his observations of driver's appearance and driver's performance on the field sobriety tests. The trial court, after considering the evidence on both sides, was left with a factual determination as to whether there were reasonable grounds for officer to arrest driver. Due to the conflicting nature of the evidence, this court must afford the trial court wide discretion on factual issues and the conclusions that follow. As to the officer's observations, driver testified that officer stated that he smelled alcohol on driver's breath. Officer's report is void of this assertion. Driver denied that he had been drinking on the date of the accident and officer noted driver's denial in the report. Officer noted that driver's clothing was mussed and dirty. Driver testified he was on his way home from work as a cement truck driver.
Officer noted that driver's speech was slurred, his walk was unsteady, and his eyes were glassy and staring. Driver testified that he told officer of his marital dispute and the sleep deprivation which resulted. Officer did not note driver's explanations in his report.
As to driver's performance on the field sobriety tests, driver testified that he believed he performed the walk-and-turn test satisfactorily. Driver also believed he performed the gaze nystagmus test adequately. Driver did not recall being administered the alphabet test. Furthermore, driver testified he was made to perform these tests in the intersection of a busy thoroughfare. Officer checked the boxes in his report regarding these tests and noted that based on driver's performance, he believed driver to be intoxicated.
Director cites to several cases to support the argument that in this case there was sufficient evidence that officer had reasonable grounds to believe driver was operating a motor vehicle in an intoxicated condition. See Peters v. Director of Revenue, 35 S.W.3d 891 (Mo.App.S.D. 2001); Hawkins v. Director of Revenue, 7 S.W.3d 549 (Mo.App. E.D. 1999); Chancellor v. Lohman, 984 S.W.2d 857 (Mo.App.W.D. 1998);
Page 1 2 3 4 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|