Riley v. Director of Revenue
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 1242
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Riley was arrested at 1:42 a.m. after driving erratically; deputy smelled intoxicants and observed red, watery eyes; Riley was noncooperative and pepper-sprayed, and no standard field sobriety tests were conducted.
- Riley requested an attorney, but deputy refused to let her consult counsel before the blood test; Implied Consent Warning given at 3:25 a.m.; blood drawn at 4:05 a.m. with BAC reportedly .119%.
- Miranda warnings were not given until 4:50 a.m.; she was transported to jail and processed for charges including DWI.
- Director’s Alcohol Influence Report and toxicology report were introduced; Director revocation followed after administrative hearing finding probable cause and BAC above .08%.
- During trial de novo, Riley stipulated to the admissibility of the toxicology report; argument centered on whether the BAC evidence was procured under §§577.020–041; trial court upheld revocation.
- Court affirmed that the BAC evidence, though potentially inadmissible under the foundational provisions, could be considered because it was admitted by stipulation and no timely objection was made; concluded there was substantial evidence to uphold the revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of BAC evidence obtained without counsel consultation | Riley argues BAC evidence invalid under §577.041.1 | Director argues admissibility via §577.037 with proper qualification | BAC evidence inadmissible if properly objected, but admissible when admitted without objection or by stipulation |
| Whether admission of BAC evidence without proper foundational compliance taints the result | Riley contends lack of proper compliance invalidates the BAC | Director contends stipulation and no objection allow consideration | Record shows admissibility can be considered where no timely objection or proper objection was made; trial court’s judgment sustained |
| Whether the Director met the burden to prove BAC at or above .08 despite admissibility issues | Riley challenges sufficiency of BAC proof | Director relies on toxicology and corroborating reports | Substantial evidence supported revocation despite admissibility concerns; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Norris v. Dir. of Revenue, 304 S.W.3d 724 (Mo. banc 2010) (twenty-minute counsel abatement begins after Implied Consent Warning if attorney sought)
- Reed v. Director of Revenue, 184 S.W.3d 564 (Mo. banc 2006) (failure to comply with §§577.020–041 means chemical analysis not admissible)
- Sellenriek v. Dir. of Revenue, 826 S.W.2d 339 (Mo. banc 1992) (admission without objection waives objection to BAC test)
- Reinert v. Dir. of Revenue, 894 S.W.2d 162 (Mo. banc 1995) (foundational prerequisites unnecessary when test admitted without objection or by stipulation)
- Akers v. Dir. of Revenue, 193 S.W.3d 325 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (right to counsel is limited; no constitutional right to counsel before test under implied consent)
- Murphy v. Dir. of Revenue, 170 S.W.3d 507 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (broad admissibility of chemical analysis under §577.037 limited by compliance)