 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hinton v. Director of Revenue4/27/1999
printing out an incorrect time, or a failure to synchronize the various timepieces. Under these specific circumstances, we have no choice but to reverse the trial court's decision upholding the Director of Revenue's revocation of Hinton's driving privileges for refusing to submit to a breath test.
The Director of Revenue's brief cites a number of cases which hold that an incorrect time on the breathalyzer printout is irrelevant to the issue of whether the breathalyzer's breath sample function, which is a separate component of the machine, is in proper working order. Farin v. Director of Revenue, No. 73428 (Mo. App. E.D. November 24, 1998); Hatfield v. Director of Revenue, 907 S.W.2d 207 (Mo. App. S.D. 1995); Dehater v. Director of Revenue, 825 S.W.2d 407 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992); Bradford v. Director of Revenue, 735 S.W.2d 208 (Mo. App. E.D. 1987); Stuhr v. Director of Revenue, 766 S.W.2d 446 (Mo. banc 1989). But while the time on the breathalyzer printout is irrelevant to the machine's separate breath sample function, it is relevant to the issue in the case at bar, which is that the record appears to show that the information required by the Implied Consent Law was not given until after Hinton's refusal, resulting in an invalid refusal. Thus, these cases are inapposite.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to enter a new judgment setting aside the Director of Revenue's revocation of Hinton's driver's license.
All concur.
|