Matthew S. Bartholomew v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 562
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On Oct. 1, 2012 Sgt. Potter stopped Matthew Bartholomew for speeding, smelled alcohol, administered standardized field sobriety tests, and arrested him; breath test later read 0.098% BAC.
- Trooper Hedrick performed maintenance on the Intoximeter on Sept. 7, 2012 and reported it was within established limits using a single simulator solution consistent with the then-effective DHSS rule (2004 version).
- The Director administratively suspended Bartholomew’s license and disqualified his CDL; Bartholomew sought trial de novo and review in St. Charles County Circuit Court.
- At trial the court admitted most prosecution exhibits but excluded the September 7 maintenance report (and deferred ruling on the breath test result), concluding that the DHSS regulation in effect at trial (effective Dec. 30, 2012) required calibration at three standards and that the defendant should benefit from the later, stricter rule.
- The circuit court ordered removal of the suspension and reinstatement of Bartholomew’s driving privileges; the Director appealed, arguing the savings clause in the 2012 rule validates maintenance performed under the earlier rule in effect when the maintenance occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bartholomew) | Defendant's Argument (Director) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether maintenance report was admissible despite later regulation change | The trial-court-era regulation (Dec. 30, 2012) imposed stricter, three-standard calibration and should apply; maintenance using one standard was noncompliant | The 2012 regulation contains a savings clause validating maintenance reports completed in compliance with the rules in effect when maintenance occurred (Sept. 7, 2012), so Hedrick’s single-standard report was valid | Reversed trial court: the maintenance report was valid because it complied with the rule in effect when performed and the savings clause preserved it |
| Whether the 2004 rule was ambiguous about required simulator levels | Argued the 2004 rule was ambiguous as to which concentration(s) must be used, so later amendment clarified ambiguity and should benefit defendant | No meaningful ambiguity existed in the 2004 rule; mere amendment does not create retroactive ambiguity | Court held there was no demonstrated ambiguity in the 2004 rule and rejected the ambiguity argument |
| Whether criminal evidentiary rules (e.g., exclusion based on retroactive benefit) apply to administrative license suspensions | Trial court treated the proceeding as quasi-criminal and applied criminal logic to exclude maintenance report | Director: administrative revocations are civil, not criminal; criminal rules do not govern admissibility in civil administrative-review proceedings | Court held administrative revocations are civil; criminal procedural protections (and Schooner Peggy reasoning relied upon by trial court) were inapplicable |
| Whether trial court erred by reversing suspension without addressing probable cause | Bartholomew relied on exclusion of maintenance report to attack BAC evidence and prevailed without trial court resolving probable cause | Director argued trial court should have applied savings clause and not exclude report; also that probable cause issue was not decided | Appellate court reversed on evidentiary/savings-clause grounds and did not reach probable-cause question; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of appellate review for trial court judgment in administrative-license appeals)
- White v. Director of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (burden and standard for Director to establish administrative suspension)
- Irwin v. Director of Revenue, 365 S.W.3d 266 (Mo. App. 2012) (foundation required to admit breath-test results)
- Salamone v. Director of Revenue, 991 S.W.2d 749 (Mo. App. 1999) (prior case applying a savings clause to preserve pre-amendment maintenance reports)
- Hunt v. Director of Revenue, 10 S.W.3d 52 (Mo. App. 1999) (same as Salamone; exclusion of maintenance reports was erroneous)