559 S.W.3d 1
Mo. Ct. App.2018Background
- Gerald Roam was arrested for DWI after poor field sobriety performance, admissions of drinking, and other signs of intoxication; breath test on an EC/IR II showed BAC .113%.
- Director revoked Roam’s license; Roam petitioned for a trial de novo.
- At trial the Director offered the BAC results; the arresting officer testified about test procedures and produced a maintenance report showing the machine worked.
- The officer could not recall filing a copy of the maintenance report with DHSS as required by regulation; Roam’s counsel declined to press the filing issue at trial but reserved it for appeal.
- Trial court excluded the BAC results, reasoning that failure to file the maintenance report with DHSS meant the regulation was not complied with and sustained Roam’s objection, leading to reinstatement of his license.
- On appeal the court held the failure to file the maintenance report with DHSS is collateral and does not render BAC results inadmissible; remanded for findings on probable cause for arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Roam) | Defendant's Argument (Director) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of BAC when maintenance report not filed with DHSS | Failure to file the maintenance report meant noncompliance with 19 CSR 25-30.031(3) and BAC results inadmissible | Filing with DHSS is not a prerequisite to admissibility; the maintenance check itself (and report) was presented | Court reversed exclusion: failure to file is collateral/irrelevant; BAC results must be admitted |
| Requirement of "absolute and literal compliance" with DHSS regs | Director must show absolute, literal compliance with regulation language before admission | Only absolute compliance required for regulations affecting actual test performance; collateral requirements need not be literal prerequisites | Court rejected Roam’s absolute-compliance claim; literal compliance not required for collateral filing rule |
| Reliability challenge: breath sample size too large | Roam argued sample size made result unreliable | Director produced evidence of proper testing and maintenance check; machine approved | Trial court already found sample-size claim did not undermine result; appellate court left that factual ruling intact |
| Director's burden on probable cause | (Not fully addressed by Roam) | Director must prove probable cause for arrest as separate element for revocation | Remanded for trial court to make/findings on probable cause to support revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Turcotte v. Director of Revenue, 829 S.W.2d 494 (Mo. App. 1992) (failure to file maintenance report with DHSS is directory/collateral and does not invalidate BAC results)
- Johnson v. Director of Revenue, 833 S.W.2d 482 (Mo. App. 1992) (filing maintenance report irrelevant to suspension question)
- Canania v. Director of Revenue, 918 S.W.2d 310 (Mo. App. 1996) (cites Turcotte; filing requirement not a prerequisite to admissibility)
- Potts v. State, 22 S.W.3d 226 (Mo. App. 2000) (absolute literal compliance required only for regulations governing actual test performance, not collateral rules)
- White v. Director of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (standard of review and Director’s burden in license-suspension appeals)
- Gallagher v. Director of Revenue, 487 S.W.3d 24 (Mo. App. 2016) (breath-test foundational requirements: approved methods, permitted operator, approved equipment)
- Stiers v. Director of Revenue, 477 S.W.3d 611 (Mo. banc 2016) (not addressing collateral-filing compliance; cited by counsel but does not overrule Turcotte)