Shane Adam Carter v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri
2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 158
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On June 16, 2013, Shane Adam Carter was stopped at a DWI checkpoint, arrested for intoxicated driving, and tested on an Alco-Sensor IV showing BAC .170%.
- The Director initiated administrative revocation under §302.520; Carter appealed and obtained a trial de novo after an examiner affirmed revocation.
- At trial the Director introduced a June 4, 2013 maintenance report (showing calibration/verification at one solution level) and a February 26, 2014 NIST-traceable certification report.
- Carter objected that 19 C.S.R. 25-30.051(2) required verification/calibration at three solution levels (as of the time of arrest) and that 25-30.051(4) required NIST certification in 2013; he argued the Director failed to prove compliance.
- The trial court found probable cause to arrest but concluded the BAC results could not be considered because the device was not properly calibrated/verified under 19 C.S.R. 25-30.051 and set aside the revocation.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed on an alternative, dispositive ground: the Director failed to prove the device was certified against a NIST-traceable thermometer/thermocouple during 2013 as required by 19 C.S.R. 25-30.051(4).
Issues
| Issue | Carter's Argument | Director's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BAC results were admissible given calibration/verification requirements of 19 C.S.R. 25-30.051(2) | Device was not verified/calibrated using the three specified simulator solutions in effect at time of arrest, so results inadmissible | The regulation should be read to require only one solution at the time of maintenance, or the later rule (requiring one solution) supersedes | Court did not decide this issue because an independent deficiency resolved the case (see certification below) |
| Whether BAC results were admissible given NIST certification requirement in 19 C.S.R. 25-30.051(4) | Director failed to show the breath simulator was certified against a NIST-traceable thermometer/thermocouple during 2013 as required | Offered a 2014 NIST certification and argued the regulation allowed a full calendar year to complete initial certification | Held for Carter: Director failed to prove required 2013 NIST certification; trial court properly could not consider BAC results |
Key Cases Cited
- Zahner v. Dir. of Revenue, 348 S.W.3d 97 (Mo. App. W.D.) (standard of review for driver's revocation cases)
- First Banc Real Estate, Inc. v. Johnson, 321 S.W.3d 322 (Mo. App. W.D.) (affirm judge-tried cases unless no substantial evidence or erroneous law)
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo.) (standard for reviewing bench trials)
- Shoemaker v. Shoemaker, 812 S.W.2d 250 (Mo. App. W.D.) (presumption judge considers only proper evidence)
- Blue Ridge Bank & Trust Co. v. Trosen, 309 S.W.3d 812 (Mo. App. W.D.) (view evidence favoring trial court)
- Raisher v. Dir. of Revenue, 276 S.W.3d 362 (Mo. App. W.D.) (Director bears burden to prove probable cause and BAC beyond limit)
- Hill v. Dir. of Revenue State of Mo., 985 S.W.2d 824 (Mo. App. W.D.) (foundational requirements: approved techniques, valid operator permit, approved equipment)