Doughty v. Director of Revenue, 2013 Mo. LEXIS 1

Norman and David Doughty challenge one-year license revocations for refusal to take a breathalyzer.
Director of Revenue records were admitted as sole evidence in both trials under section 302.312.1.
Arresting officers were not present for Norman; officer may have been subpoenaed but not compelled to testify.
Each Doughty testified inconsistently with officer reports; Norman claimed requests to contact an attorney and calibration concerns.
Trial courts admitted the director’s records without officer testimony; both petition for review denied.
Missouri courts have previously held drivers may subpoena witnesses or rely on director’s records; different trials addressed confrontation concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does section 302.312.1 violate due process by admitting director records without witness testimony?	Doughtys contend it violates confrontation rights.	Director argues records admissible and officers could be subpoenaed.	No due process violation; records admissible without testimony.
Was the right to confrontation preserved given the option to subpoena arresting officers?	Doughtys were denied cross-examination by not having officers testify.	Doughtys could subpoena officers but chose not to; rights preserved.	Rights preserved; failure to subpoena did not violate due process.

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (due process requires opportunity to be heard and confront adverse witnesses)
Dabin v. Director of Revenue, 9 S.W.3d 610 (Mo. banc 2000) (due process applies to license suspensions; confrontation rights analyzed)
Collins v. Director of Revenue, 691 S.W.2d 246 (Mo. banc 1985) (subpoena right allows confrontation when desired)
Manzella v. Director of Revenue, 363 S.W.3d 393 (Mo.App.2012) (driver could subpoena officers; director records admissible to authenticate)
Wei v. Director of Revenue, 335 S.W.3d 558 (Mo.App.2011) (subpoena of officer to testify; cross-examination not pursued)