Douglas v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE
2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1585
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Director suspended Respondent's license for DWI after an accident; Trooper Wheeles failed to produce dashboard video/audio recordings despite subpoena; recordings were not located though policy encouraged preservation; trial court sanctioned the Trooper by excluding his testimony and Alcohol Influence Report; trial court found no probable cause and reinstated Respondent's license; the Director appeals arguing the sanctions misapplied the law and should not apply to records not in the Director's possession.
- Recordings were not in Director's possession, and spoliation sanctions cannot punish non-possession persons; Trooper testified recordings may exist but were not produced.
- Court decisions limit spoliation sanctions to parties or their agents who destroyed evidence in bad faith; Trooper was not a party to the case.
- Director's position: sanctions cannot be applied for recordings outside Director's possession; spoliation doctrine is inapplicable here.
- Court's holding: reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with opinion.
- Procedural posture: appellate review of sanctions and probable-cause determination in a DWI license-reinstatement proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions misapplied for failure to produce records not in Director's possession | Douglas argues sanctions were proper due to nondisclosure | Director contends sanctions cannot rely on records not in its possession | Yes, sanctions cannot be based on non-possession records. |
| Whether spoliation doctrine applies when evidence was destroyed by a non-party officer | Douglas relies on spoliation for lost recordings | Director asserts spoliation requires party-directed destruction | No, spoliation does not apply since Trooper (non-party) did not destroy evidence with Director's direction. |
| Effect of excluding Trooper's testimony on probable cause finding | Exclusion aided by sanctions undermines probable cause | Exclusion was improper under law | Reversed; remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion. |
| Whether the Director can be sanctioned for non-production of materials not in its custody | Director should not bear sanction for materials outside custody | Director bears responsibility only for custodied records | Held in favor of Director; sanction improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bedell v. Director of Revenue, 935 S.W.2d 94 (Mo.App. W.D.1996) (non-possession records cannot justify sanctions against Director)
- Lazzari v. Director of Revenue, 851 S.W.2d 68 (Mo.App. E.D.1993) (records in Patrol custody not in Director's possession; sanctions improper)
- Richardson v. Director of Revenue, 725 S.W.2d 141 (Mo.App. E.D.1987) (spoliation doctrine limits sanctions to destruction by party/agent)
- Schneider v. G. Guilliams, Inc., 976 S.W.2d 522 (Mo.App. E.D.1998) (spoliation requires bad faith participation by the party)
- Baldridge v. Director of Revenue, 82 S.W.3d 212 (Mo.App. W.D.2002) (agent of Director; spoliation lacks showing of bad-faith participation)
- Morris v. Director of Revenue, 59 S.W.3d 654 (Mo.App. S.D.2001) (trial court may assess credibility when considering missing recordings)