Tweedy v. Director of Revenue
412 S.W.3d 389
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Tweedy, 18, was stopped for a possible DWI; Deputy Burkard observed the stop and Deputy Hoelzer observed signs of intoxication.
- Tweedy was arrested after field sobriety tests; BAC measured at 0.185 following a breath test.
- Director suspended Tweedy’s driving privileges; Tweedy petitioned for trial de novo.
- Director relied on Exhibit A (Arrest narrative) and Exhibit B (Deputy Burkard’s report) to prove probable cause.
- Exhibit B was undated, unsigned, inconsistent with Exhibit A, and included a third officer not referenced in Exhibit A; the trial court found Exhibit B not credible and sustained Tweedy’s objection to Exhibit A’s double hearsay.
- The trial court ultimately set aside the suspension; the Director appealed seeking reinstatement of the suspension.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable-cause burden under Section 302.505.1 | Director: Exhibit A (double hearsay) establishes probable cause. | Tweedy: Exhibit A’s double hearsay not admissible; no credible basis for probable cause. | Trial court must weigh credibility; probable cause not established. |
| Harmless error from excluding Exhibit A’s double hearsay | Exhibit A would have proven probable cause if admitted. | Exhibit B’s credibility issues do not negate Exhibit A's content. | Error harmless; credibility findings allowed; no reversal. |
| Use of post-arrest admissions to prove driving at arrest time | Post-arrest admission should support driving evidence. | Post-arrest admissions cannot establish probable cause at the time of arrest. | Post-arrest admissions not admissible to prove probable cause at arrest. |
| Director’s subpoena duty and confrontation rights impact | Director had agreed to subpoena Deputy Burkard; failure to produce violated confrontation rights. | Director’s discretion in evidentiary ruling; no manifest injustice. | No manifest injustice; trial court’s discretion respected; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bouillon v. Dir. of Revenue, 306 S.W.3d 197 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (hearsay admissible to establish probable cause if related to officer's information)
- White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. banc 2010) (clarified burden of proof and allowed trial court to weigh credibility)
- O’Rourke v. Dir. of Revenue, 409 S.W.3d 443 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (reaffirmed White’s shift on burden of proof)
- Punis v. Puisis, 90 S.W.3d 169 (Mo. App. E.D. 2002) (evidence may be contested through inconsistencies and credibility)
- Doughty v. Dir. of Revenue, 387 S.W.3d 383 (Mo. banc 2013) (due process protections apply; Director’s subpoena duties relate to confrontation)
- Whitworth v. Dir. of Revenue, 207 S.W.3d 623 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (live testimony vs. records; risks in 302.312.1 submissions)
- Hinnah v. Dir. of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. banc 2002) (probable-cause must be based on information in officer’s possession at arrest)
- Ex rel. Nothum v. Walsh, 380 S.W.3d 557 (Mo. banc 2012) (right not to testify against self in civil proceedings)