Kristin Nicole Stiers v. Director of Revenue
2016 Mo. LEXIS 6
| Mo. | 2016Background
- Stiers was stopped for swerving, arrested for DWI, and given a breath test showing BAC of .172.
- The breath test used an Alco-Sensor IV calibrated with only one standard solution, contrary to the 2012 version of 19 CSR 25-30.051 requiring three solutions.
- The Director sought to admit the breath-test results; the trial court excluded them, finding improper calibration foundation.
- Administrative revocation of Stiers’ license occurred; she pursued trial de novo in circuit court under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.535.1.
- DHSS amended 19 CSR 25-30.051 in 2014, changing 3-solution requirement to allow 1 solution; the Director argued retroactive applicability.
- The trial court held the calibration violated the 2012 regulation in effect at the time of testing; the court’s decision was reviewed en banc.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did 2013 regulation require three calibration solutions? | Stiers argues three solutions were required by 2012 version. | Stiers contends only one solution may be used due to later context and form language. | Yes; 2012 regulation required three solutions. |
| Does 'and' in 19 CSR 25-30.051(2) require all three solutions? | Three solutions must be used because of conjunctive 'and'. | Regulation can be read to allow any one of the solutions. | No; the court reads 'and' as requiring multiple solutions under the regulation in effect. |
| Should the 2014 emergency amendment retroactively validate a prior calibration? | Apply amended rule to validate calibration used in 2013. | Retroactive validation would be improper and absurd. | No; retroactive application rejected; use the regulation in place at testing. |
| Was the breath-test admissible under the regulation governing admission of results at trial? | Calibration validity affects admissibility under §577.037. | Regulations governing calibration are separate from admissibility rules. | Admissibility was properly governed by the regulation in effect at the time of testing; test deemed invalid. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Moore, 303 S.W.3d 515 (Mo. banc 2010) (statutory interpretation gives effect to plain language)
- Parktown Imports, Inc. v. Audi of America, Inc., 278 S.W.3d 670 (Mo. banc 2009) (regulations interpreted like statutes)
- Johnson v. Dir. of Revenue, 411 S.W.3d 878 (Mo. App. 2013) (appellate review of license suspension like civil case)
- White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (deference limits in mixed findings of fact and law)
- Finnegan v. Old Republic Title Co. of St. Louis, Inc., 246 S.W.3d 928 (Mo. banc 2008) (regulatory interpretation parallels statutory interpretation)