556 S.W.3d 667
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Feb. 7, 2016, a Dodge Ram crashed off I-270; the driver left the scene. A 911 caller described the driver; officers located Mannino nearby with a Dodge key and matching description.
- Mannino was detained for leaving the scene; officers suspected intoxication. At the station Officer Kiefer smelled alcohol, observed bloodshot/watery eyes, slurred speech, unsteady balance, and administered three field sobriety tests, which Mannino failed.
- Mannino made inconsistent statements about who was driving, sometimes implying he had been driving. He was read Miranda and Implied Consent warnings, refused a breath test, and was charged with DWI.
- The Director revoked Mannino’s license under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.041 for refusal; Mannino sought a de novo trial to contest revocation.
- At the revocation hearing the Director introduced documents (crash report, alcohol influence report, officer narrative); Mannino’s counsel raised no evidentiary objections and offered no evidence. The trial court upheld the revocation; Mannino appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had reasonable grounds/probable cause to arrest Mannino for DWI at the time of arrest | Mannino argued there was no evidence he was driving; only an unidentified 911 caller saw the driver, so probable cause was lacking | Director argued circumstantial evidence (matching description, Dodge key, intoxication indicators, failed SFSTs, inconsistent statements, refusal) supplied reasonable grounds at the time of the DWI arrest at the station | Court held probable cause existed at the station to arrest for DWI; evidence supported that Mannino had driven while intoxicated (Point I denied) |
| Whether exclusionary rule should suppress evidence used to show reasonable grounds | Mannino argued portions of the Director’s exhibit were obtained in violation of constitutional rights and should be suppressed | Director argued Mannino waived any objection at hearing and exclusionary rule does not apply in civil license revocation proceedings | Court held Mannino waived appellate review by saying “no objection” at trial; also held suppression is unavailable in Missouri civil license revocation proceedings (Point II denied) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinnah v. Director of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. banc 2002) (elements of §577.041 revocation hearing; reasonable grounds/probable cause equivalence)
- Guhr v. Director of Revenue, 228 S.W.3d 581 (Mo. banc 2007) (no requirement officer have probable cause for DWI at initial stop/arrest for other violations)
- Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014) (911 calls have identifying features that can lend reliability)
- Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000) (anonymous tips lacking indicia of reliability cannot alone justify stop)
- Garriott v. Director of Revenue, 130 S.W.3d 613 (Mo. App. W.D. 2004) (exclusionary rule not applied in Missouri civil license revocation proceedings)