 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
St. Pierre v. Director of Revenue3/21/2001
[Director] has met burden in reference to that particular issue. And for that reason alone, I'm going to find in favor of [St. Pierre] and against [Director]. . . ."
Thereon, the court entered judgment for St. Pierre. This appeal by Director followed. Rule 84.13(d) sets forth the standard governing this court's review in a case tried without a jury. In Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.banc 1976), the Supreme Court of Missouri interpreted the predecessor of that rule to mean the trial court's judgment will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law. "That standard applies to appellate review in a proceeding under section 577.041.4." Calicotte v. Director of Revenue, 20 S.W.3d 588, 591 (Mo.App. 2000).
Three prerequisites must be found before a trial court can uphold Director's decision to revoke a person's driving privileges for failure to submit to a chemical test pursuant to section 577.041: (1) the driver was arrested; (2) the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe the driver was driving while intoxicated; and (3) the driver refused to submit to a chemical test. Sutton v. Director of Revenue, 20 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Mo.App. 2000); section 577.041.4.
Director's sole point relied upon claims the trial court erred in setting aside the revocation because Director unequivocally proved these prerequisites, thus proving his prima facie case. He argues that since St. Pierre failed to adduce any evidence at the hearing to rebut the prima facie showing, the trial court had no alternative but to uphold the revocation. Continuing, Director insists the court misapplied the law in this case by either (a) using the "exclusionary rule" (which is inapplicable in civil cases) to exclude all of Director's evidence, or (b) implicitly finding that compliance with section 544.157.4 (the applicable provision of the "Uniform Fresh Pursuit Law") was an essential element of a section 577.041 license revocation case. We agree that the trial court misapplied the law.
The exclusionary rule is a judicially-created means of deterring illegal searches and arrests by preventing the evidence collected by that method from being used at trial when the purpose of the case being prosecuted is to punish an offender. Riche v. Director of Revenue, 987 S.W.2d 331, 334 (Mo.banc 1999). The rule does not, however, "'proscribe the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.'" Id. (quoting Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 486, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976)). Thus, there is a plethora of relevant Missouri cases which recognize the inapplicability of the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule to a circuit court's review of Director's action in revoking a driver's license because the proceeding is civil in nature; consequently, Director can use evidence in license revocation proceedings that would be viewed as illegally obtained and excluded if offered in a criminal case. See e.g. Riche, 987 S.W.2d 331 (section 302.505 suspension); Sterneker v. Director of Revenue, 3 S.W.3d 808 (Mo.App. 1999) (section 302.505 revocation where driver complained arrest outside city limits was invalid for lack of "fresh pursuit" policy); Jennings v. Director of Revenue, 992 S.W.2d 249 (Mo.App. 1999) (section 302.505 suspension where driver complained arrest outside city limits was invalid for lack of "fresh pursuit" policy); Sullins v. Director of Revenue, 893 S.W.2d 848 (Mo.App. 1995) (section 577.041 revocation); Sulls v. Director of Revenue, 819 S.W.2d 782 (Mo.App. 1991) (section 302.505 suspension).
Partic
Page 1 2 3 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|