346 S.W.3d 319
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Darryl S. Davis was arrested for suspected driving while intoxicated on February 28, 2010.
- At the DeSoto Police Station, Davis was read his Miranda rights and given the implied consent warning, with an opportunity to contact a lawyer.
- Davis spent about fifteen minutes attempting to contact a lawyer before saying, 'Let's get this over with.'
- During detention, Davis consistently refused to submit to a breathalyzer test.
- The Director of Revenue revoked Davis's license under Section 577.041 after a hearing, and the trial court affirmed the revocation.
- The central issue is whether Davis was given the required twenty minutes to contact counsel after the Implied Consent Warning, making the refusal valid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was twenty minutes to contact an attorney given after the Implied Consent Warning? | Davis argues no twenty minutes were provided. | Director asserts Davis was given an opportunity to contact counsel after the warning. | Yes; evidence supports opportunity after warning. |
| Is the timing of events (order/timing) controlling if disputed and did it prejudice the driver? | Disputed sequence undermines validity of the refusal. | Lack of prejudice allows upholding the revocation. | Prejudice not shown; revocation sustained. |
| Did potential failure to follow the sequence require reversal under McMaster/Schussler rules? | Noncompliance with sequence should reverse revocation. | Director proved no prejudice despite sequence issues. | No reversible error; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard for bench-trial review)
- White v. Director of Revenue, 255 S.W.3d 571 (Mo.App. S.D.2008) (requires twenty-minute opportunity after warning)
- Norris v. Director of Revenue, 304 S.W.3d 724 (Mo. banc 2010) (abatement period begins after warning)
- Schmidt v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 48 S.W.3d 688 (Mo.App. W.D.2001) (twenty-minute period triggered by request for counsel)
- Weil v. Director of Revenue, 304 S.W.3d 768 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (opportunity to contact attorney post-warning; timing matters)
- Snider v. Director of Revenue, 314 S.W.3d 841 (Mo.App. S.D.2010) (abandonment doctrine and twenty-minute rule)
- McMaster v. Lohman, 941 S.W.2d 813 (Mo.App. W.D.1997) (prejudice standard for sequence violations)
- Schussler v. Fischer, 196 S.W.3d 648 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (prejudice requiring relief absent prejudice)