467 S.W.3d 870
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- Langley was stopped after speeding in a 35-mph zone on Dec 6, 2013; officer observed 52 mph and Langley fled, then parked behind a store.
- Officer noted a very strong odor of alcohol, bloodshot and glassy eyes, slurred speech, and Langley admitted consuming alcohol.
- Langley performed field sobriety tests: abnormal HGN, imperfect walk-and-turn, and a successful one-leg stand; a portable breath test indicated alcohol.
- At the jail, Langley refused to submit to a chemical breath test after being read the Implied Consent warning; driving privileges were revoked for one year.
- Langley filed a petition for review; the trial court admitted the Alcohol Influence Report and bodycam video; Langley did not testify.
- The appellate court affirmed, applying de novo review to whether reasonable grounds existed for probable cause to arrest for DWI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there were reasonable grounds to arrest for DWI | Langley argues no probable cause. | Director contends evidence showed reasonable grounds. | Yes; substantial evidence supported reasonable grounds for arrest. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Dir. of Revenue, 424 S.W.3d 495 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (probable cause for DWI less stringent than criminal guilt)
- White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (probable cause standard and deference to trial court findings)
- Velluto v. Dir. of Revenue, 383 S.W.3d 14 (Mo. App. E.D. 2012) (field sobriety tests supplement probable cause)
- Bruce v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, 323 S.W.3d 116 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (field sobriety tests are not mandatory for probable cause)
- Norris v. Dir. of Revenue, 156 S.W.3d 786 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (absence of proper field tests does not preclude probable cause)
- Lord v. Dir. of Revenue, 427 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. App. E.D. 2014) (odor of alcohol and other indicators support probable cause)