559 S.W.3d 66
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Hearne was arrested for DWI after a traffic stop; officer observed bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, odor of alcohol, and failed field-sobriety/portable breath tests.
- At the intake facility Hearne registered .148% BAC on an Intox DMT breath analyzer (over .08% legal limit).
- Director suspended Hearne's license administratively; Hearne sought a trial de novo to contest the suspension.
- At trial the Director offered a Blood Alcohol Test Report (including the .148% result) and a maintenance report for the Intox DMT; Hearne objected solely because the maintenance report was not filed with DHSS within 15 days as required by regulation.
- The Commissioner (and trial court on review) excluded the BAC results for the late DHSS filing and reinstated Hearne’s driving privileges; Director appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hearne) | Defendant's Argument (Director) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether untimely filing of the maintenance report with DHSS renders BAC results inadmissible | Late filing of the maintenance report violated DHSS regulation and so BAC results must be excluded | Filing with DHSS is collateral; failure to file on time does not affect test accuracy or admissibility | Director prevailed: late filing is irrelevant to admissibility absent challenge to maintenance/test accuracy; BAC admitted |
| Whether Director met burden to suspend license | N/A (focused only on filing issue) | Director produced probable cause for arrest and BAC > .08% via admissible breath test evidence | Director met burden; suspension should be reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Turcotte v. Dir. of Revenue, 829 S.W.2d 494 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (failure to file maintenance report with DHSS does not by itself render BAC results inadmissible)
- Johnson v. Dir. of Revenue, 833 S.W.2d 482 (Mo. App. E.D. 1992) (filing maintenance report with DHSS irrelevant to whether driver is subject to suspension)
- Canania v. Dir. of Revenue, 918 S.W.2d 310 (Mo. App. S.D. 1996) (citing Turcotte and Johnson; same principle)
- Potts v. State, 22 S.W.3d 226 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (distinguishes regulations affecting test performance from collateral filing requirements)
- Roam v. Dir. of Revenue, 559 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. App. E.D. 2018) (discusses DHSS maintenance/reporting regulation and admissibility standards)
- White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard of review for license-suspension appeals)