 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
St. Pierre v. Director of Revenue3/21/2001
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Camden County, Hon. Jack A. Bennett
Opinion Vote: REVERSED.
Parrish, P.J., and Montgomery, J., concur.
Citing part of Missouri's Implied Consent Law, specifically section 577.041, RSMo Cum.Supp. 1999, Missouri's Director of Revenue ("Director") revoked the license of Kara Lynn St. Pierre ("St. Pierre") to operate a motor vehicle. Director based the revocation on St. Pierre's refusal to submit to a chemical test of her breath pursuant to section 577.020.1.
St. Pierre petitioned the circuit court for review of Director's decision, per section 577.041.4. After an evidentiary hearing, the court entered a judgment which set aside the revocation and ordered St. Pierre's license reinstated. Director appeals. We reverse and order that the revocation of St. Pierre's driving privileges be reinstated.
The undisputed facts show Officer Todd Bithell ("Bithell") of the Linn Creek Police Department was westbound on Highway 54 during the evening hours of December 3, 1999. As he was driving, Bithell noticed a car attempting to pull onto the highway, via access from a side road, without properly signaling. As the car pulled onto the highway, a van almost hit the car, and only escaped the collision when the driver of the van slammed on the brakes. Upon witnessing the near accident, Bithell turned around and sought to pull the car over. However, between the time it took to turn around, maneuver past the van, and pull the car over, the car had left the city limits and was pulled over approximately two-tenths of a mile outside the city limits.
Immediately upon approaching the vehicle, Bithell noticed a strong odor of alcohol. The driver was identified as St. Pierre by her license. Bithell asked St. Pierre to step out of the car and walk to the back of it, and as she did so, he noticed "she staggered and swayed quite badly." Based on these observations, Bithell began to administer field sobriety tests. St. Pierre failed most of these, was arrested, and transported to the county sheriff's department. Bithell read both the Miranda warnings and the Implied Consent Law to St. Pierre. After this, St. Pierre refused to submit to a chemical test of her breath to detect her level of intoxication. Bithell then completed and submitted to Director an alcohol influence report and a narrative report describing his version of the stop and arrest. Acting on Bithell's reports, Director revoked St. Pierre's license for refusal to take the test. St. Pierre then filed a petition for review with the circuit court.
At trial, Bithell acknowledged his pursuit of St. Pierre ended when he stopped and arrested her outside the corporate limits of Linn Creek. When asked on cross-examination about Linn Creek's "fresh pursuit" policy as required by section 544.157.4, he disclaimed any knowledge about such policy, saying: "I have no idea. I don't have it with me. . . . I would have to refer to it." Director rested his case without putting in evidence the fresh pursuit policy of Linn Creek. St. Pierre then argued Director had not proved a valid arrest or a valid refusal because of the absence of the policy provisions. The trial court agreed as evidenced by the following comments:
"The Court has considered the evidence in this particular case. There is only one issue as far as the Court's concerned. It's whether there was this policy has to be presented to the Court for it to be a valid arrest. That is the only issue. As far as the rest of it I would find all issues in favor of [Director]."
"No one has even told me what those minimum [fresh pursuit] standards are and if they are met by that policy so I did not find
Page 1 2 3 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|