427 S.W.3d 253
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- At 3:39 a.m. on Dec. 17, 2011, Lord was stopped after observed lane-weaving and failure to signal; dash cam shows drifting and traffic violations.
- Officer smelled alcohol, noted bloodshot/glassy/watery eyes, confused speech, and unsteady/swaying balance; Lord told officer she had had two (later said three) drinks.
- Officer administered HGN, walk-and-turn, one-leg-stand (noting multiple clues/failures) and a PBT that read above legal BAC, then arrested Lord for DWI.
- Lord requested administrative hearing; DOR suspended her license; she sought de novo judicial review and the trial court (without the arresting officer testifying) entered a form judgment finding no probable cause and ordered reinstatement.
- On appeal the DOR argued the undisputed evidence (dash cam, AIR, tests, admissions) established probable cause; the appellate court reviewed the legal issue de novo and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had probable cause to arrest for DWI | Lord: Facts (admissions, observations, test results) admitted but legally insufficient for probable cause given her explanations (cold/windy, barefoot on rocks, pinkeye, bad knees) | DOR: Officer’s observations, field sobriety failures, PBT result, traffic violations and admissions together provided probable cause | Reversed trial court: officer had probable cause to arrest |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of appellate review for bench trials)
- White v. Director of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (review standards and when deference is required to trial court credibility findings)
- Velluto v. Director of Revenue, 383 S.W.3d 14 (Mo.App.E.D.2012) (undisputed evidence presents a legal question reviewed without deference)
- Gannon v. Director of Revenue, 411 S.W.3d 394 (Mo.App.E.D.2013) (lists officer observations that can establish probable cause absent reliable field tests)
- Hinnah v. Director of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. banc 2002) (definition of probable cause)
- Brown v. Director of Revenue, 85 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. banc 2002) (traffic violation plus indicia of intoxication can supply probable cause)
- Routt v. Director of Revenue, 180 S.W.3d 521 (Mo.App.E.D.2006) (strong odor, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and swaying support probable cause)
- Rain v. Director of Revenue, 46 S.W.3d 584 (Mo.App.E.D.2001) (erratic driving and signs of impairment sufficient for probable cause)
- Harlan v. Director of Revenue, 334 S.W.3d 673 (Mo.App.S.D.2011) (driver may admit facts yet challenge their legal sufficiency for probable cause)
- Sostman v. Director of Revenue, 363 S.W.3d 55 (Mo.App.E.D.2011) (same; admission of indicia does not preclude arguing those facts are legally insufficient)