GRAFEMAN v. Director of Revenue
344 S.W.3d 861
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Grafeman was arrested for driving while intoxicated on February 18, 2009 and submitted a breath sample showing a BAC of .226, leading to license suspension.
- Grafeman petitioned for trial de novo and objected to admitting the DataMaster breath test results and maintenance report on the ground that the officers' permits and maintenance permits were void.
- The Director argued the officers’ permits were valid due to MOUs and authority retained by DHSS to issue permits for BAP despite Executive Order 07-05 transferring the program to MoDOT.
- The circuit court excluded the DataMaster test results and maintenance report, and reinstated Grafeman’s driving privileges.
- The Director appealed, contending the permits were valid and the trial court erred in excluding the documents, raising issues about the effect of Executive Order 07-05 on DHSS’s authority.
- The Western District reversed, holding that EO 07-05 did not automatically transfer BAP to MoDOT and DHSS retained authority to issue permits until the reorganization plan was implemented, remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EO 07-05 automatically transferred BAP to MoDOT and divested DHSS of permit authority. | Grafeman argued DHSS permits were void after EO 07-05 | Director argued permits were valid through MOUs and ongoing authority | EO 07-05 did not automatically transfer; DHSS retained permit authority; admission reversed and remand ordered. |
| Whether the BAC test results and maintenance report were admissible given permit validity. | Grafeman contends documents should be excluded due to invalid permits | Director contends permits valid or error harmless | Because EO 07-05 did not automatically transfer, DHSS permits were valid; test results admissible; remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vanderpool v. Dir. of Revenue, 226 S.W.3d 108 (Mo. banc 2007) (standard of review for evidence rulings; abuse of discretion)
- Schneider v. Dir. of Revenue, 339 S.W.3d 533 (Mo.App. E.D.2011) (EO 07-05 did not automatically transfer BAP; DHSS retained authority)
- Downs v. Dir. of Revenue, 344 S.W.3d 818 (Mo.App.S.D.2011) (applied Schneider's interpretation of EO 07-05)
- Carney v. Dir. of Revenue, 344 S.W.3d 802 (Mo.App.S.D.2011) (applied Schneider; permits validity)
- Griggs v. Dir. of Revenue, 344 S.W.3d 799 (Mo.App.S.D.2011) (applied Schneider; permits validity)
- State v. Ross, 344 S.W.3d 790 (Mo.App.W.D.2011) (applied Schneider; permits validity)
- K.L.D., State ex rel. Department of Social Services, Family Support Division v. K.L.D., 118 S.W.3d 283 (Mo.App. W.D.2003) (executive orders alone do not amend statutes; transfer planned but not immediate)