 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Baldwin v. Director of Revenue6/27/2000
. Such expungement shall be performed by the department of revenue without need of a court order.
Section 302.545.1 (emphasis added).
Sections 302.505.1, 302.541.2, and 302.545.1 are clear and unambiguous. Section 302.505.1 expressly declares that the license of (a) drivers "less than twenty-one years of age when stopped," with (b) "a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or more by weight" shall be suspended or revoked. Section 302.505.1 (emphasis added). Likewise, section 302.541.2 unequivocally and clearly states that (a) " ny person less than twenty-one years of age" suspended or revoked for (b) "driving a motor vehicle with two-hundredths of one percent or more blood alcohol content" (c) "is exempt from filing proof of financial responsibility with the department of revenue . . . as a prerequisite for reinstatement of driving privileges. . . ." Section 302.541.2 (emphasis added). And finally, section 302.545.1 unambiguously provides that (a) " ny person who is less than twenty-one years of age" suspended or revoked for (b) "driving with two-hundredths of one percent of blood alcohol content" (c) "shall have all official records and all recordations maintained by the department of revenue of such suspension or revocation expunged. . . ." Section 302.545.1 (emphasis added).
The Director urges us to re-write sections 302.541 and 302.545.1 to read "with a blood alcohol content between two-hundredths of one percent and .099%," instead of "with a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths or more by weight." This we cannot do. Courts have no authority to read into a statute a legislative intent which is contrary to the intent made evident by the plain and ordinary language of the statute. Kearney Special Road Dist. v. County of Clay, 863 S.W.2d 841, 842 (Mo. banc 1993). If the legislature intended to place a cap in the statutes at .099%, it could easily have done so. However, it clearly chose not to and indeed stated with precision exactly what it intended, "two-hundredths of one percent or more." This reflects a considered judgment on the part of the legislature not to place a cap in the expungement and financial responsibility provisions.
We recognize that " ublic policy as established by the general assembly calls for strict enforcement of the sanctions against driving while intoxicated," Vangilder v. Director of Revenue, 954 S.W.2d 31, 33 (Mo. App. E.D. 1997), and the Zero Tolerance Law provided for a lowered threshold for apprehension of those drivers under the age of twenty-one who have consumed any appreciable amount of alcohol. However, by enacting the specific provisions of sections 302.541.2 and 302.545, the legislature demonstrated an intent to give youthful drivers a second chance following a sole incidence of driving while intoxicated. "The legislature has imposed a more stringent blood alcohol content standard for the suspension or revocation of licenses of drivers under age twenty-one. For the legislature to confer additional safeguards to those same drivers is rational." Riche v. Director of Revenue, 987 S.W.2d 331, 337 (Mo. banc 1999). "Section 302.505.1 clearly expresses a legislative intent proscribing minors from operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content in excess of .02%." Middleton v. Director of Revenue, 992 S.W.2d 904, 907 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999) (emphasis added). The statutory provisions apply to all drivers under the age of twenty-one at the time of a first offense, who exhibit a blood alcohol level over .02%.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed insofar as it holds that (a) Baldwin must file proof of financial responsibility as a prerequisite to reinstatement of his license and (b) the Department of
Page 1 2 3 4 Missouri DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|