 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Duncan v. Director of Revenue5/2/2000
op be based upon probable cause.
. . .the costs of excluding unlawfully seized evidence in a proceeding pursuant to section 302.505 outweigh the potential benefits of applying the exclusionary rule. Id. at 336; See also, Gordon v. Director of Revenue, 896 S.W.2d 737, 740 (Mo. App. E.D. 1995).
Therefore, the Director does not have the burden of showing the lawfulness of or probable cause for a stop in order to revoke or suspend driving privileges under section 302.500-302.540. As a result, the trial court erroneously declared and applied the law in holding otherwise. Point granted.
We reverse and remand the cause for additional proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
|