Missouri

CASES
  • Click here to download all Missouri cases
  • Addison v. Director of Revenue, 302 S.W.3d 735 (2010)
    Driver filed petition for review of Director of Revenue's decision to disqualify his commercial driving privileges for a second year. The Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Barbara W. Wallace, J., found that the Director of Revenue was restricted from imposing a double period of suspension and ordering the Director to reinstate license. Director appealed. The Court of Appeals, George W. Draper III, J., held that driver's one-year disqualification period could not be credited against subsequent one-year disqualification period. Reversed and remanded.
  • Akins v. Director of Revenue, 303 S.W.3d 563 (2010)
    After driver's driving privileges were denied, following his convictions for three counts of second degree vehicular assault, he sought review. The Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Shannon Renee Dougherty, J., affirmed. Driver appealed. The Supreme Court, Richard B. Teitelman, J., held that driver's three convictions for vehicular assault did not constitute one conviction, under statute that required the director of revenue to deny driving privileges for ten years to “any person who has been convicted more than twice for offenses relating to driving while intoxicated,” even though the convictions all arose out of one incident; overruling Harper v. Director of Revenue, 118 S.W.3d 195. Affirmed.
  • Baber v. Director of Revenue, State, 317 S.W.3d 680 (2010)
    Driver sought judicial review of decision of the Director of Revenue disqualifying driver's commercial driving privilege following his arrest for driving while intoxicated (DWI). The Circuit Court, Platte County, Daniel M. Czamanske, J., reversed the disqualification, and Director appealed. The Court of Appeals, James M. Smart, Jr., J., held that suspension of base driver's license constituted a conviction for purposes of Commercial Driver's License Act meriting disqualification of commercial driving privileges. Reversed.
  • Bender v. Director of Revenue, 320 S.W.3d 167 (2010)
    Driver's license holder sought review of the Director of Revenue's decision to disqualify his driving privileges based on refusal to submit to a chemical test of his blood. The Circuit Court, Lincoln County, Ben Burkemper, J., upheld the decision. Driver's license holder appealed. The Court of Appeals, Clifford H. Ahrens, J., held that driver's license holder's submission to court-ordered search warrant for blood test did not preclude revocation for refusal to submit to test. Affirmed.
  • Bieker v. Director of Revenue, 345 S.W.3d 254 (2010)
    Automobile driver who had been arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and refused a breath test sought judicial review of Director of Revenue's revocation of driving privileges. The Circuit Court, Greene County, William R. Hass, Special Judge, found driver was not legally arrested and that officer did not have valid reasonable cause to believe driver was driving while intoxicated. Director appealed. The Court of Appeals, Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, P.J., held that evidence was sufficient to support finding that police officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe driver was driving while intoxicated. Affirmed.
  • Bland v. Director of Revenue, 324 S.W.3d 451 (2010)
    Motorist sought review of administrative revocation of his driving privileges for refusal to submit to chemical testing. The Circuit Court, Shannon County, Sandra West, Associate Circuit Judge, reinstated motorist's license, and Director of Revenue appealed. The Court of Appeals, Gary W. Lynch, J., held that officer had probable cause to believe that motorist was intoxicated. Reversed and remanded with directions.
  • Bone v. Director of Revenue, 404 S.W.3d 883 (2013)
    IMPLIED CONSENT Driver sought review of Director of Revenue's (DOR) suspension of his driver's license and the disqualification of him from holding a commercial driver's license (CDL) following his driving-while-intoxicated charge. The Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Robert G. Wilkins, J., found that statutes requiring suspension of driver's license and disqualification of CDL were unconstitutional. Director of Revenue appealed. The Supreme Court, Mary R. Russell, C.J., held that: [1] issues regarding constitutionality of statutes were tried by implied consent, and [2] statutes did not violate Spending Clause of the United States Constitution. Reversed.
  • Bouillon v. Director of Revenue, 306 S.W.3d 197 (2010)
    Director of Revenue appealed order of the Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Barbara W. Wallace, J., reinstating motorist's driving privileges. The Court of Appeals, Sherri B. Sullivan, J., held that: [1] evidence was sufficient to establish that officer had probable cause to believe that motorist was intoxicated, and [2] evidence was sufficient to support finding that motorist had recently driven vehicle. Reversed and remanded with directions.
  • Bowers v. Director of Revenue, 193 S.W.3d 887 (2006)
    Motorist sought review of decision of the Director of the Department of Revenue, issuing a 10-year license denial to motorist based on multiple convictions for driving while intoxicated. The Circuit Court, Newton County, Kevin L. Selby, J., ordered that Director set aside the denial of driving privileges and reinstate operator's license to motorist. Director appealed. The Court of Appeals, Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, P.J., held that: [1] copy of motorist's DWI conviction supported Director's denial of motorist's license, and [2] motorist failed to refute driving record introduced by Director. Reversed and remanded with directions.
  • Bruce v. State, Dept. of Revenue, 323 S.W.3d 116 (2010)
    Motorist filed petition for review of decision by Director of Revenue revoking motorist's driving privileges based on her refusal to submit to a chemical test upon her arrest for driving while intoxicated (DWI). The Circuit Court, Jackson County, Gregory B. Gillis, J., denied petition. Motorist appealed. The Court of Appeals, Lisa White Hardwick, C.J., held that: [1] trial court's finding that officer had probable cause to arrest motorist for driving while intoxicated (DWI) was supported by evidence, and [2] there was sufficient evidence that motorist refused to submit to a chemical breath test.
  • Cardenas v. Director of Revenue, 339 S.W.3d 608 (2011)
    After licensee was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) and refused to take an alcohol breath test, his driving privileges were revoked. Licensee appealed. The Circuit Court, Pulaski County, Tracy L. Storie, J., reinstated licensee's driving privileges. The Director of Revenue appealed. The Court of Appeals, Robert S. Barney, P.J., held that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that police officer's testimony was not “competent” and was not admissible. Reversed and remanded.
  • Coble v. Director of Revenue, 323 S.W.3d 74 (2010)
    After the Director of Revenue revoked driver's driving privileges based on his failure to submit to a breath analysis, driver appealed. The Circuit Court, Greene County, Randall W. Shackelford, J., reinstated driver's driving privileges. The Director appealed. The Court of Appeals, Robert S. Barney, P.J., held that: [1] driver's arrest for driving while intoxicated (DWI) was not rendered invalid, for the purpose of civil license revocation proceeding, based on the fact that the arrest occurred more than 90 minutes after driver's accident, and [2] driver's arrest for DWI was not rendered invalid because driver was arrested by officers outside of the city limits. Reversed.
  • Covert v. Director of Revenue, 344 S.W.3d 272 (2011)
    Motorist filed petitions for judicial review, challenging administrative revocation of her driver's license for refusing to submit to chemical test of her blood alcohol concentration, and challenging suspension of her driver's license for having a blood alcohol concentration above .08. After consolidating the petitions, the Circuit Court, Franklin County, Stanley D. Williams, J., found that Director of Revenue could revoke motorist's license for refusing test, but set aside the order suspending motorist's license, on grounds that statutes required exclusion of blood alcohol evidence obtained pursuant to a court-issued warrant. Director appealed. The Court of Appeals, Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J., held that: [1] motorist's license could be both revoked and suspended, and [2] results of motorist's court-ordered blood test were admissible at suspension proceedings. Reversed and remanded.
  • Davis v. Director of Revenue, 346 S.W.3d 319 (2011)
    IMPLIED CONSENT Motorist whose license had been revoked following his arrest for driving while intoxicated (DWI) appealed revocation. The Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Mark T. Stoll, J., affirmed revocation. Motorist appealed. The Court of Appeals, Kenneth M. Romines, J., held that sufficient evidence supported the trial court's finding that motorist was given time to contact an attorney after being read the implied consent warning. Affirmed.
  • Downs v. Director of Revenue, 344 S.W.3d 818 (2011)
    Licensee sought review of a decision from the Director of Revenue to suspend driving license for one year based on results of breath test taken after licensee was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI). The Circuit Court, Camden County, Bruce Colyer, J., entered judgment in favor of licensee and reinstated driving privileges. Director of Revenue appealed. The Court of Appeals, Nancy Steffen Rahmeyer, J., held that licensee's breath test results were not rendered inadmissible by agency failure to complete transfer of breath alcohol program. Reversed and remanded.
  • Folkedahl v. Director of Revenue, 307 S.W.3d 238 (2010)
    Driver's license holder sought review of a decision from the Director of Revenue to suspend his driving privilege due to arrest for driving while intoxicated. The Circuit Court, Platte County, Daniel M. Czamanske, J., set aside the suspension. Director of Revenue appealed. The Court of Appeals, Victor C. Howard, J., held that setting administrative hearing in wrong county was not a procedural defect that rendered trial de novo under Suspension and Revocation Administrative Procedure Act (SRAPA) unavailable. Reversed and remanded.
  • Grafeman v. Director of Revenue, 344 S.W.3d 861 (2011)
    Motorist sought review of decision of Director of Department of Revenue, suspending his driver's license for driving with an excessive blood-alcohol content (BAC). After granting motorist's motion to exclude results of BAC test that police had performed on motorist, the Circuit Court, Miller County, Kenneth L. Oswald, J., entered judgment reinstating motorist's license. Director appealed. The Court of Appeals, Thomas H. Newton, J., held that permits to operate BAC testing equipment issued to police officers by Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) were valid. Reversed and remanded.
  • Holloway v. Director of Revenue, 324 S.W.3d 768 (2010)
    Motorist's driving privileges were revoked after she refused to submit to a chemical test to determine her blood alcohol content (BAC). Subsequently, the Circuit Court, Butler County, Thomas D. Swindle, J., entered judgment finding that officer had no reasonable grounds to believe motorist was driving while intoxicated. Director of Revenue appealed. The Court of Appeals, William W. Francis, Jr., J., held that evidence was insufficient to establish that police officer had reasonable grounds or probable cause to believe that motorist was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition. Affirmed.
  • Johnston v. Director of Revenue, 305 S.W.3d 465 (2010)
    Driver's license holder sought review of a decision from the Director of Revenue suspending his driver's license on basis of an out-of-state conviction for driving under the influence. The Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Barbara Wallace, J., upheld the decision. Driver's license holder appealed. The Court of Appeals, Roy L. Richter, J., held that driver's license holder could not collaterally challenge date of Kentucky DUI conviction, warranting suspension of license on notice of such conviction. Affirmed.
  • Linhardt v. Director of Revenue, 320 S.W.3d 202 (2010)
    Driver brought action against Director of Revenue, challenging the suspension of her driving privileges for failure to maintain financial responsibility. The Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Barbara Wallace, J., dismissed and remanded for an administrative hearing. Director appealed. The Court of Appeals, Nannette A. Baker, J., held that trial court did not have authority to remand the case following determination that driver had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Affirmed in part and vacated in part.
  • Mason v. Director of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 426 (2010)
    After the director of revenue revoked licensee's driving privileges, licensee appealed. The Circuit Court, Camden County, Jack A. Bennett, J., reversed. The director appealed. [Holding:] The Court of Appeals, William W. Francis, Jr., J., held that the fact that licensee's arrest for driving under the influence (DUI) was unlawful, as the officer who arrested licensee did so outside of his city and county limits, had no negative ramifications for civil license revocation proceeding. Reversed and remanded.
  • Mayfield v. Director of Revenue, MO, 335 S.W.3d 572 (2011)
    Driver petitioned for reinstatement of his driver's license. The Circuit Court, Marion County, Robert M. Clayton, II, J., granted petition. The Director of Revenue appealed. The Court of Appeals, Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., P.J., held that driver's drug paraphernalia conviction precluded reinstatement of his driving privileges. Reversed and remanded.
  • Neal v. Director of Revenue, State, 312 S.W.3d 444 (2010)
    Driver whose license was revoked for failure to submit to breath test requested trial de novo. After refusing to grant the Director of Revenue's request for a continuance, the Circuit Court, Pulaski County, Colin Long, Associate Circuit Judge, ordered the driver's license reinstated, and Director appealed. The Court of Appeals, Don E. Burrell, J., held that director was entitled to a continuance. Reversed and remanded.
  • Norris v. Director of Revenue, 304 S.W.3d 724 (2010)
    IMPLIED CONSENT Driver sought review of decision of Director of Revenue to revoke driver's driving privileges. The Circuit Court, Dent County, Sanborn N. Ball, J., reinstated driving privileges. Director of Revenue appealed. The Supreme Court, Richard B. Teitelman, J., held that: [1] statutory 20–minute time period to attempt to contact an attorney begins immediately after the officer has informed the driver of the implied consent law, irrespective of whether the driver requested an attorney before or after an officer informs him of the implied consent law, abrogating Williams v. Dir. of Revenue, 277 S.W.3d 318, and Paxton v. Dir. of Revenue, 258 S.W.3d 68, and [2] driver's request to speak to an attorney after being given Miranda warning was sufficient to invoke 20–minute rule. Affirmed.
  • Prins v. Director of Revenue, 333 S.W.3d 17 (2010)
    Driver petitioned for a trial de novo after Director of Revenue suspended driver's driving privileges for allegedly driving while intoxicated (DWI). The Circuit Court, Benton County, Mark B. Pilley, J., granted driver's motion for sanctions on the basis of spoliation of evidence by disallowing the introduction of any evidence or testimony regarding driver's stop and arrest. Director appealed. The Court of Appeals, Western District, Victor C. Howard, J., held that: [1] Spoliation doctrine was not a proper basis to exclude any of Director of Revenue's evidence regarding the stop and arrest of driver, and [2] Director of Revenue had no duty to produce videos of traffic stop as long as they were not available to Director. Reversed and remanded.
  • Pruitt v. Director of Revenue, 303 S.W.3d 658 (2010)
    Driver sought judicial review of decision by Director of Revenue to revoke driver's license for failure to submit to blood test of driver's alcohol level. The Circuit Court, Callaway County, Patrick A. Horner, J., reinstated driver's license, and Director appealed. The Court of Appeals, Joseph M. Ellis, J., held that driver was required to submit to blood alcohol test or have her driving privileges suspended. Reversed and remanded.
  • Radmacher v. Director of Revenue, 405 S.W.3d 607 (2013)
    Driver sought review of Department of Revenue's disqualification of his privilege to drive a commercial motor vehicle following his guilty plea to the charge of second-degree assault for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated resulting in injury. The Circuit Court, Cass County, Daniel Olsen, J., affirmed. Driver appealed. The Court of Appeals, James Edward Welsh, C.J., held that evidence was sufficient to support disqualification of driver's commercial driver's license. Affirmed.
  • Rohlman v. Director of Revenue, 323 S.W.3d 459 (2010)
    Automobile licensee sought judicial review of 60–day suspension of driver's license. The Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Margaret McCartney, J., ordered the Director of Revenue to remove the 60–day suspension from licensee's driving record, and the Director appealed. The Court of Appeals, Clifford H. Ahrens, J., held that Director was statutorily obligated to suspend driver's license for a second time, for a period of 60 days. Reversed and remanded.
  • Ross v. Director of Revenue, 311 S.W.3d 732 (2010)
    Driver who had been convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) sought review of decision of Director of Revenue revoking his driver's license for refusing to submit to breath test. The Circuit Court, Platte County, Daniel M. Czamanske, J., upheld revocation of license. Driver appealed. On transfer from the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, Mary R. Russell, J., held that driver was "arrested" for purposes of statute governing revocation of driver licenses, and thus revocation of driver's license was proper. Affirmed.
  • Schneider v. Director of Revenue, 339 S.W.3d 533 (2011)
    After the director of revenue suspended licensee's driving privileges, licensee appealed. The Circuit Court, St. Charles County, Matthew E.P. Thornhill, J., affirmed. Licensee appealed. The Court of Appeals, Patricia L. Cohen, J., held that licensee's alcohol breath test results were admissible. Affirmed.
  • Sostman v. Director of Revenue, 363 S.W.3d 55 (2011)
    Commercial truck driver petitioned for review of suspension of his driving privileges. The Circuit Court, Franklin County, Stanley D. Williams, J., reversed. Director of Revenue appealed. Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., held that: [1] police officer had probable cause to believe that driver committed an alcohol-related traffic offense, and [2] evidence presented at trial was sufficient to establish that driver had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over .08, warranting suspension of his driving privileges. Reversed and remanded.
  • State v. Chong-Aguirre, 413 S.W.3d 378 (2013)
    Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Newton County, Timothy W. Perigo, J., of first-degree drug trafficking. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals, Don E. Burrell, J., held that: [1] defendant failed to preserve issue of whether trial court erred in overruling defendant's motion to suppress evidence, and [2] evidence supported finding that defendant had possession of cocaine loaded on commercial truck, even though defendant was one of two co-drivers who had control of truck and access to the contents of the trailer. Affirmed.
  • Strup v. Director of Revenue, 311 S.W.3d 793 (2010)
    Motorist sought judicial review of decision of the Director of Revenue, disqualifying his commercial driving privilege for one year based on his arrest for driving while intoxicated with a blood alcohol content of .08% or more. The Circuit Court, Johnson County, Joseph P. Dandurand, J., entered order directing the director to reinstate motorist's commercial driving privilege. Director appealed. The Supreme Court, Zel M. Fischer, J., held that: [1] motorist's due process rights were not violated for failure to provide him with a pre-disqualification hearing, and [2] suspension of motorist's base driving privilege constituted a “conviction” of driving under the influence of alcohol which merited the disqualification. Reversed; disqualification of reinstated.
  • Weil v. Director of Revenue, 304 S.W.3d 768 (2010)
    IMPLIED CONSENT Driver's license holder sought review of an order from the Director of Revenue to revoke his driving privileges for one year for refusal to take a breath test. The Circuit Court, City of St. Louis, Michael F. Stelzer, J., upheld the order. Driver's license holder appealed. The Court of Appeals, Roy L. Richter, J., held that failure to provide driver 20 minutes in which to contact attorney after reading implied consent law precluded license revocation. Reversed and remanded.
  • White v. Director of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (2010)
    Motorist petitioned for judicial review of the administrative suspension, by the Director of Revenue, of motorist's license to drive, which suspension was based on motorist's arrest on probable cause to believe he was driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 percent or greater. After trial de novo, the Circuit Court, Henry County, Wayne Patrick Strothmann, J., reinstated motorist's driving privilege. Director appealed. Holdings: On transfer from the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, Patricia Breckenridge, J., held that: [1] in the Circuit Court, the Director of Revenue had the burden of production and the burden of persuasion, and the rules of civil procedure governed the trial de novo, overruling Berry v. Dir. of Revenue, 885 S.W.2d 326, Reinert v. Dir. of Revenue, 894 S.W.2d 162, Brown v. Dir. of Revenue, 85 S.W.3d 1, Verdoorn v. Dir. of Revenue, 119 S.W.3d 543, Coyle v. Dir. of Revenue, 181 S.W.3d 62, York v. Dir. of Revenue, 186 S.W.3d 267, and Guhr v. Dir. of Revenue, 228 S.W.3d 581, and [2] Circuit Court's determination that state highway patrol sergeant lacked probable cause to arrest motorist for an alcohol-related offense was not against the weight of the evidence. Circuit Court affirmed.
  • Williams v. Director of Revenue, 335 S.W.3d 70 (2011)
    Motorist petitioned for review of decision of the Director of Revenue revoking his driving license based on an alleged refusal to submit to a breath or blood test. The Circuit Court, Benton County, Mark Brandon Pilley, J., reversed the Director's decision and reinstated motorist's driving privileges. Director appealed. The Court of Appeals, James Edward Welsh, J., held that ambiguities that occurred after motorist's alleged refusal to submit to a breath test were not grounds to reverse the Director's revocation of motorist's driving license. Reversed and remanded.

 

STATUTES

Adoption of Federal Regulations

  • No reference.

What Constitutes a CMV

Major Disqualifying Offenses

Major Disqualifying Offenses (Alcohol)

Serious Traffic Offenses

Identification of Conviction

Masking Convictions

10-Day Posting Requirement

Other CDL Provisions