DUI DWI: International Referral

Courts | Lic | Law | Instr | Stds | Exprt  

 

 

Unofficial information about this Missouri legislation is provided by the following attorney or lawyer:

Click here for sponsor

DUI, DWI & Criminal Legislation in Missouri  

Refusal to submit to chemical test--revocation of license, hearing--arresting officer's report--evidence, admissibility , section: 577.041

Warning: This is NOT a government web site. The information provided herein has NOT been provided by a government. This information has been provided by a lawyer or attorney or student, for the purpose of providing basic information about the laws and regulations enacted by a government and the government offices that apply laws and regulations, and for the purpose of encouraging discussion and facilitating proper legal challenges related to the application of laws and regulations made by government. Citizens always have the right to challenge government. Citizens need independent information not provided by government about government offices, phone numbers, locations, and their services or lack thereof. Please note that the information provided may not be up to date. It is your responsibility to meet with a lawyer or attorney in person to get complete advice. Information provided by some government sites may also be sometimes out of date, sometimes incomplete, or sometimes focused on protection of government politicians, officers, policy initiatives, and interests. It is essential that you retain and instruct an independent lawyer or attorney to represent YOUR interests and inform you accordingly. 

Refusal Offense/Presumption, Refusal of Chemical Test Statute in a Missouri DUI / DWI / BAC or other drunk driving case

1. If a person under arrest, or who has been stopped pursuant to subdivision (2) or (3) of subsection 1 of section 577.020, refuses upon the request of the officer to submit to any test allowed pursuant to section 577. 020, then none shall be given and evidence of the refusal shall be admissible in a proceeding pursuant to section 565.024 or 565.060, RSMo, or section 577.010 or 577.012. The request of the officer shall include the reasons of the officer for requesting the person to submit to a test and also shall inform the person that evidence of refusal to take the test may be used against such person and that the person's license shall be immediately revoked upon refusal to take the test. If a person when requested to submit to any test allowed pursuant to section 577.020 requests to speak to an attorney, the person shall be granted twenty minutes in which to attempt to contact an attorney. If upon the completion of the twenty-minute period the person continues to refuse to submit to any test, it shall be deemed a refusal. In this event, the officer shall, on behalf of the director of revenue, serve the notice of license revocation personally upon the person and shall take possession of any license to operate a motor vehicle issued by this state which is held by that person. The officer shall issue a temporary permit, on behalf of the director of revenue, which is valid for fifteen days and shall also give the person a notice of such person's right to file a petition for review to contest the license revocation.

2. The officer shall make a sworn report to the director of revenue, which shall include the following:

(1) That the officer has:

(a) Reasonable grounds to believe that the arrested person was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition; or

(b) Reasonable grounds to believe that the person stopped, being under the age of twenty-one years, was driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or more by weight; or

(c) Reasonable grounds to believe that the person stopped, being under the age of twenty-one years, was committing a violation of the traffic laws of the state, or political subdivision of the state, and such officer has reasonable grounds to believe, after making such stop, that the person had a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or greater;

(2) That the person refused to submit to a chemical test;

(3) Whether the officer secured the license to operate a motor vehicle of the person;

(4) Whether the officer issued a fifteen-day temporary permit;

(5) Copies of the notice of revocation, the fifteen-day temporary permit and the notice of the right to file a petition for review, which notices and permit may be combined in one document; and

(6) Any license to operate a motor vehicle which the officer has taken into possession.

3. Upon receipt of the officer's report, the director shall revoke the license of the person refusing to take the test for a period of one year; or if the person is a nonresident, such person's operating permit or privilege shall be revoked for one year; or if the person is a resident without a license or permit to operate a motor vehicle in this state, an order shall be issued denying the person the issuance of a license or permit for a period of one year.

4. If a person's license has been revoked because of the person's refusal to submit to a chemical test, such person may petition for a hearing before a circuit or associate circuit court in the county in which the arrest or stop occurred. The person may request such court to issue an order staying the revocation until such time as the petition for review can be heard. If the court, in its discretion, grants such stay, it shall enter the order upon a form prescribed by the director of revenue and shall send a copy of such order to the director. Such order shall serve as proof of the privilege to operate a motor vehicle in this state and the director shall maintain possession of the person's license to operate a motor vehicle until termination of any revocation pursuant to this section. Upon the person's request the clerk of the court shall notify the prosecuting attorney of the county and the prosecutor shall appear at the hearing on behalf of the director of revenue. At the hearing the court shall determine only:

(1) Whether or not the person was arrested or stopped;

(2) Whether or not the officer had:

(a) Reasonable grounds to believe that the person was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition; or

(b) Reasonable grounds to believe that the person stopped, being under the age of twenty-one years, was driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or more by weight; or

(c) Reasonable grounds to believe that the person stopped, being under the age of twenty-one years, was committing a violation of the traffic laws of the state, or political subdivision of the state, and such officer had reasonable grounds to believe, after making such stop, that the person had a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or greater; and

(3) Whether or not the person refused to submit to the test.

5. If the court determines any issue not to be in the affirmative, the court shall order the director to reinstate the license or permit to drive.

6. Requests for review as provided in this section shall go to the head of the docket of the court wherein filed.

7. No person who has had a license to operate a motor vehicle suspended or revoked pursuant to the provisions of this section shall have that license reinstated until such person has participated in and successfully completed a substance abuse traffic offender program defined in section 577.001, or a program determined to be comparable by the department of mental health or the court. Assignment recommendations, based upon the needs assessment as described in subdivision (22) of section 302.010, RSMo, shall be delivered in writing to the person with written notice that the person is entitled to have such assignment recommendations reviewed by the court if the person objects to the recommendations. The person may file a motion in the associate division of the circuit court of the county in which such assignment was given, on a printed form provided by the state courts administrator, to have the court hear and determine such motion pursuant to the provisions of chapter 517, RSMo. The motion shall name the person or entity making the needs assessment as the respondent and a copy of the motion shall be served upon the respondent in any manner allowed by law. Upon hearing the motion, the court may modify or waive any assignment recommendation that the court determines to be unwarranted based upon a review of the needs assessment, the person's driving record, the circumstances surrounding the offense, and the likelihood of the person committing a like offense in the future, except that the court may modify but may not waive the assignment to an education or rehabilitation program of a person determined to be a prior or persistent offender as defined in section 577.023, or of a person determined to have operated a motor vehicle with fifteen-hundredths of one percent or more by weight in such person's blood. Compliance with the court determination of the motion shall satisfy the provisions of this section for the purpose of reinstating such person's license to operate a motor vehicle. The respondent's personal appearance at any hearing conducted pursuant to this subsection shall not be necessary unless directed by the court.

8. The fees for the substance abuse traffic offender program, or a portion thereof to be determined by the division of alcohol and drug abuse of the department of mental health, shall be paid by the person enrolled in the program. Any person who is enrolled in the program shall pay, in addition to any fee charged for the program, a supplemental fee to be determined by the department of mental health for the purposes of funding the substance abuse traffic offender program defined in section 302.010, RSMo, and section 577.001. The administrator of the program shall remit to the division of alcohol and drug abuse of the department of mental health on or before the fifteenth day of each month the supplemental fee for all persons enrolled in the program, less two percent for administrative costs. Interest shall be charged on any unpaid balance of the supplemental fees due the division of alcohol and drug abuse pursuant to this section and shall accrue at a rate not to exceed the annual rates established pursuant to the provisions of section 32.065, RSMo, plus three percentage points. The supplemental fees and any interest received by the department of mental health pursuant to this section shall be deposited in the mental health earnings fund which is created in section 630.053, RSMo.

9. Any administrator who fails to remit to the division of alcohol and drug abuse of the department of mental health the supplemental fees and interest for all persons enrolled in the program pursuant to this section shall be subject to a penalty equal to the amount of interest accrued on the supplemental fees due the division pursuant to this section. If the supplemental fees, interest, and penalties are not remitted to the division of alcohol and drug abuse of the department of mental health within six months of the due date, the attorney general of the State of Missouri shall initiate appropriate action of the collection of said fees and interest accrued. The court shall assess attorney fees and court costs against any delinquent program.

Comments : MISSOURI DUI / DWI CIVIL LICENSE SUSPENSION HEARING PROCEDURES FOR REFUSAL OF A CHEMICAL TEST; DRIVER'S MOST COMMON QUESTIONS IN A MISSOURI CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL CASE

There are three Main points of contention in a license suspension hearing for a refusal of a chemical test in the civil portion of a Missouri DUI / DWI case.

I. THE DRIVER MUST BE PLACED UNDER ARREST

The first requirement that the state must show in a Missouri refusal hearing is that the driver was actually under arrest. A driver must be under arrest in order to be found to have refused. A refusal prior to arrest will not sustain a revocation of the driver's license. Collette v. Director of Revenue, 717 S.W.2d 551, 557 (Mo.App. 1986). No particular words are necessary to effectuate an arrest. So long as a police officer has taken control of the person's movements he or she is under arrest. State v. Ikerman, 698 S.W.2d 902, 905 (Mo.App. 1985).

An arrest by a police officer in a Missouri DUI / DWI case may not be proper if the officer has no indication of a submission by the driver to the officer's authority to arrest. In such a case, the Director of Revenue's revocation will not be valid. Callendar v. Director of Revenue, 44 S.W.3d 866 (Mo. App. 2001). While an arrest requires actual restraint or submission by the officer on the driver, there is no need to restrain a driver who is immobilized from an accident where it has been announced the driver is under arrest. Saladino v. Director of Revenue, 88 S.W.3d 64 (Mo.App. W.D. 2002).

It is important to note that reasonable suspicion for the initial stop of the driver's vehicle is not an issue in a civil refusal case, and the criminal exclusionary rule does not apply in civil cases. Sullins v. Director of Revenue, 893 S.W.2d 848 (Mo.App. S.D. 1995); Green v. Director of Revenue, 745 S.W.2d 818 (Mo.App. W.D. 1988). This means that the Director of Revenue can suspend the driver's license for refusal of a chemical test even where the initial stop by the officer of the driver's vehicle is unlawful, provided that all of the Director of Revenue meets all of the other requirements for suspending the driver's license for refusal.

A valid arrest of the driver in a refusal hearing context can be based on grounds other than actual arrest for DUI / DWI as long as the arrest of the driver arises out of the same acts which give the officer proper grounds to believe the driver is involved with DWI. The driver does not have to be arrested for DWI to support a refusal. Westhoelter v. Director of Revenue, 783 S.W.2d 150 (Mo.App. E.D. 1990).

II. THERE MUST BE REASONABLE GROUNDS TO ARREST IN A MISSOURI CIVIL REFUSAL CASE

The second requirement that the state must show in a Missouri refusal hearing is that the officer had reasonable grounds to arrest the driver. Reasonable grounds is synonymous with probable cause. Wilcox v. Director of Revenue, 842 S.W.2d 240 (Mo.App. 1992); Tuggle v. Director of Revenue, 727 S.W.2d 168 (Mo.App. 1987). Reasonable grounds must exist at the time of the arrest; cannot either based upon, or refuted by, information obtained after arrest. Howard v. Director of Revenue, 716 S.W.2d 912 (Mo.App. E.D. 1986).

Proof that the person was driving while intoxicated may be direct or circumstantial. Stenzel v. Director of Revenue, 536 S.W.2d 163, 168 (Mo.App. 1976). Example: if a driver admits that he was driving a vehicle it is admissible to prove the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to arrest him. Tuggle v. Director of Revenue, 727 S.W.2d 168 (Mo.App. 1987); Tolen v. Dept. of Revenue, 564 S.W.2d 601 (Mo.App. 1978); Webb v. Director of Revenue, 896 S.W.2d 517 (Mo.App. W.D. 1995).

The issue in a Missouri civil refusal to take a chemical test hearing is whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe the driver was operating while intoxicated, not whether he actually was driving. Hinnah v. Director of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. banc 2002); Kinsman v. Director of Revenue, 58 S.W.3d 27 (Mo.App. 2001) ("it may seem absurd that the statute would not allow the driver to contest the revocation simply on the grounds that the driver was not driving. Absurd or not, that is what the statute says.").

RSMo. Section 577.041 does not require the arresting officer to have reasonable grounds to arrest the driver prior to the initial stop, indicia of intoxication in the driver observed by officer after the initial stop will sustain a reasonable belief that the driver was driving the vehicle while intoxicated. Roadblocks or sobriety checkpoints stops are also permissible to establish reasonable grounds to arrest for the purposes of a Missouri refusal to take a chemical test hearing. Gelsheimer v. Director of Revenue, 845 S.W.2d 107 (Mo.App. 1993).

III. THE DRIVER MUST HAVE ACTUALLY REFUSED THE CHEMICAL TEST

The third requirement that the state must show in a Missouri refusal hearing is that the driver actually refused a chemical test. The Missouri courts have held that any intentional failure by the driver to do what is necessary for the performance of a chemical test after a Missouri DUI / DWI arrest is a refusal. Spradling v. Deimeke, 528 S.W. 2d 759, 766 (Mo. 1975). The driver's does not have to make a "knowing" refusal, for him or her to have legally refused. Lyons v. Director of Revenue, 36 S.W.3d 409 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001).

The driver's inability to remember events surrounding a his or her refusal is irrelevant to the question of whether the driver actually refused the chemical test. Berry v. Director of Revenue, 885 S.W.2d 326 (Mo. banc 1994); Cartwright v. Director of Revenue, 824 S.W.2d 38 (Mo.App. 1991).

In a Missouri DUI / DWI case, a driver's refusal to submit to a chemical test can occur in many non-verbal ways. Failing to blow properly into the mouthpiece is a refusal. Sutton v. Director of Revenue, 20 S.W.3d 918 (Mo.App. S.D. 2000); Stewart v. McNeill, 703 S.W.2d 97 (Mo.App. W.D. 1985); Askins v. James, 642 S.W.2d 383 (Mo.App. 1982); Benson v. Director of Revenue, 937 S.W.2d 768 (Mo.App. W.D. 1997). Where a driver blows around the mouthpiece after giving consent to a chemical test, it is deemed by the Missouri courts a refusal. Askins v. James, 642 S.W.2d 383, 386 (Mo.App. 1982).

Similarly, even where a driver has asthma or other similar physical defects that might make it difficult to perform the chemical breath test; the court is not bound by the driver's unilateral claim of an asthma attack, and failure to perform the chemical test can be deemed a refusal even where the driver attempts to take the breath test. White v. Director of Revenue, 784 S.W.2d 861 (Mo.App. 1990).

If the driver places conditions on whether or not he or she will consent to a chemical test, it may be deemed a refusal. Spradling v. Deimeke, 528 S.W.2d 759 (Mo. 1975); Rains v. King, 695 S.W. 2d 523 (Mo.App. 1985); Bach v. Director of Revenue, 764 S.W.2d 742 (Mo.App. 1989). However, if the driver places a condition on whether or not he or she will consent to a chemical test and the officer agrees to the condition, but then the officer reneges on the agreement, the revocation against the driver will not be valid. Lowery v. Spradling, 554 S.W.2d 555 (Mo. App. 1977) (officer agreed to wait for subject's employer, but then insisted on a chemical test before the employer arrived).

If a driver refuses to agree to pay for a blood test it does not constitute a refusal to take a chemical test. Sparling v. Director of Revenue, 52 S.W.3d 11 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001). Similarly, the driver refusing to sign a hospital's release form also does not constitute a refusal of a chemical test. Woffard v. Director of Revenue, 868 S.W.2d 142 (Mo.App. E.D. 1993).

An implied consent warning given by the officer to the driver after a refusal to a chemical test in a Missouri DUI / DWI case invalidates the refusal. Hinton v. Director of Revenue, 990 S.W.2d 207 (Mo.App. W.D. 1999).

RIGHT TO COUNSEL/ REQUEST TO SPEAK WITH AN ATTORNEY

When a driver is arrested for DUI / DWI in Missouri, the driver has the right to 20 minutes to speak with an attorney after the implied consent is read by the officer and the driver is asked to consent to a chemical test only if the driver specifically asks to speak with an attorney. A driver may be deemed to not have refused a chemical test if not given 20 minutes to contact an attorney after being given the implied consent warnings. McMaster v. Lohman, 941 S.W.2d 813 (Mo.App. 1997); Albrecht v. Director of Revenue, 833 S.W.2d 40 (Mo.App. 1992).

If the driver asks to speak to an attorney, he or she must be given 20 minutes to contact an attorney after the implied consent warning is read, unless the driver affirmatively abandons attempts to contact counsel. Lorton v. Director of Revenue, 985 S.W.2d 437 (Mo.App. W.D. 1999); Long v. Director of Revenue, 65 S.W.3d 545 (Mo.App. W.D. 2001). Note: If a driver requests to speak with an attorney and the officer then cites the driver for refusing the chemical test, it must be shown that the effort to speak with an attorney was abandoned or there must be a showing of futility in the driver's effort to contact the attorney if the driver is not given the full 20 minutes allowed by law before being cited for the refusal. Keim v. Director of Revenue, 86 S.W.3d 177 (Mo.App. E.D. 2002).

If the driver is cited for refusing a chemical test after requesting to speak with an attorney and the driver alleges at a refusal hearing that he or she was not given the full 20 minutes, the Director of Revenue must provide evidence that the driver was given the full 20 minutes for there to be a valid refusal. Keim v. Director of Revenue, 86 S.W.3d 177 (Mo.App. E.D. 2002).

The statutory right to contact an attorney is only triggered by a specific request by the driver to speak with a lawyer after the implied consent warning is read and submission to a chemical test is requested by the officer. Green v. Director of Revenue, 849 S.W.2d 658 (Mo.App. 993); State v. Foster, 959 S.W.2d 143 (Mo.App. 1998). The full 20 minutes are not required if driver abandons his attempts to contact an attorney. Witeka v. Director of Revenue, 913 S.W.2d 438 (Mo.App. 1995); Wall v. Holman, 902 S.W.2d 329 (Mo.App. 1995). The 20 minutes to contact an attorney begin when a driver is asked to take a chemical test and has opportunity to call; no additional 20 minutes required if implied consent warning is read to driver more than once. Wilmoth v. Director of Revenue, 903 S.W.2d 595 (Mo.App. 1995).

Where an officer remains nearby the driver during his or her attempts to call an attorney during the 20 minute period, it does not violate the statutory right to counsel. Clardy v. Director of Revenue, 896 S.W.2d 53 (Mo. App. 1995).

If the opportunity to contact counsel comes prior to the implied consent warning being read to driver, it must be shown that the driver was not prejudiced or the refusal will be deemed invalid. Brown v. Director of Revenue, 34 S.W.3d 166 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000); Glastetter v. Director of Revenue, 37 S.W.3d 405 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001).

Asking for an attorney after refusing the chemical test does not trigger the 20-minute rule. Eckenrode v. Director of Revenue, 994 S.W.2d 583 (Mo.App. S.D. 1999). However, sequence of events must be unambiguous. Mount v. Director of Revenue, 62 S.W.3d 597 (Mo.App. W.D. 2001). To trigger the 20-minute rule, the driver must specifically request to talk to an attorney not just "use the phone," or call "someone." If the driver later agrees to take the test it does not affect the refusal. Moody v. Director of Revenue, 14 S.W.3d 729 (Mo.App. E.D. 2000).

"TWO SUCH TESTS"

The officer may request any two tests of the driver's blood, breath or urine, in a DUI / DWI arrest in Missouri, although they rarely request two tests. However, the driver does not get to choose what type of chemical test he or she takes. Kiso v. King, 691 S.W.2d 374 (Mo.App. 1985); Williams v. Lohman, 996 S.W.2d 127 (Mo.App. W.D. 1999), i.e., if the officer requests a blood test the driver will be deemed to have refused if he or she says consent will be given for a breath test but not a blood test, or vice versa.

The reference to "two such tests" in the statute means two of the types of tests allowed, not merely two unsuccessful attempts to get a test result. Snow v. Director of Revenue, 935 S.W.2d 383 (Mo.App. 1996) (motorist subject to revocation for refusing blood test after three unsuccessful attempts to get a breath sample); State v. Rabe, 870 S.W.2d 453 (Mo.App. S.D. 1994) (incomplete tests do not count towards the two tests allowed in the statute).

A driver claiming to be too drunk to knowingly refuse a chemical test will not overturn a refusal revocation. Turner v. Director of Revenue, 829 S.W.2d 671 (Mo.App. 1992).

AN INDEPENDENT TEST AT THE DRIVER'S OWN EXPENSE

It is allowed under Missouri law for a driver to obtain an independent chemical test at their own expense so long as they first perform the test requested by the officer. The officer does not have to advise the driver of this right, and do not have to give the independent test unless the driver knows to ask for it, and does specifically ask for it.

While the driver may ask for an independent chemical test at his or her own expense, the officer is not required to assist the driver is obtaining such a test. Pierce v. Director of Revenue, 51 S.W.3d 888 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001).

OTHER NOTES ON MISSOURI REFUSAL CASES

A refusal of a portable breath test in the field pre-arrest does not trigger the implied consent law or act as a refusal under the statute. Justice v. Director of Revenue, 890 S.W.2d 728 (Mo.App. W.D. 1995); Baker v. Director of Revenue, 945 S.W.2d 589 (Mo.App. E.D. 1997).

The language of the refusal statute does not require that the driver be operating a vehicle on a public highway at the time of arrest in order to be subject to a revocation for refusing a chemical test. Bertram v. Director of Revenue, 930 S.W.2d 7 (Mo.App. W.D. 1996); Peeler v. Director of Revenue, 934 S.W.2d 329 (Mo.App. E.D. 1996) (both cases involved operation of a vehicle on a parking lot).

An officer is without authority to administer a chemical test once the driver has refused to take the test, even if the driver later changes his or her mind and requests to take the test. Blanchard v. Director of Revenue, 877 S.W.2d 172 (Mo.App. W.D. 1994); Eckenrode v. Director of Revenue, 994 S.W.2d 583 (Mo. App. S.D. 1999).

DRIVER'S MOST COMMON QUESTIONS IN A MISSOURI CHEMICAL TEST REFUSAL CASE

Do I have to file proof of SR-22 insurance for a refusal in my Missouri DUI / DWI case?

Since a driver's license revocation in Missouri for a refusal of a chemical test is not a revocation made under RSMo. Chapter 302, the SR-22 requirement does not apply, and the driver does not have to file proof of SR-22 insurance. However, if the driver wishes to drive on a limited driving privilege after the first ninety (90) days of the one-year suspension for refusal is complete, he or she would have to file an SR-22 for the duration of the year-long limited driving privilege period.

Do I have a right to speak with an attorney in a refusal case?

If the driver, when requested to submit to a chemical test, requests to speak with an attorney, he or she shall be granted 20 minutes in which to attempt to contact an attorney. If after the expiration of 20 minutes the driver continues to refuse to submit to a chemical test it shall be deemed a refusal. RSMo. Section 577.041.

Why do I have two separate criminal and civil refusal hearings in my driver's Missouri DUI / DWI case?

Civil Administrative Refusal Hearings under RSMo. 577.041 are separate from any criminal proceedings arising from the same incident. A driver may still be revoked for refusal even if he or she is acquitted of DWI in the criminal portion of his or her Missouri DUI / DWI case. Tolen v. Missouri Department of Revenue, 564 S.W.2d 601, 602 (Mo.App. 1978).

Similarly, a determination of no probable cause for the arrest in the criminal portion of a driver's Missouri DUI / DWI case is irrelevant to the civil refusal portion of the case. Borchelt v. Director of Revenue, 806 S.W.2d 95, 101 (Mo.App. 1991). What this means is a driver can win and get the criminal portion of his or her case dismissed and still lose their license for one year in the civil refusal hearing for refusing a chemical test.

For my license suspension, can I get credit for time served on my license suspension for accumulation of points on my one-year civil refusal license suspension?

There is no credit given for time from "points" to a refusal. DUI / DWI and refusal to submit to a chemical test are separate violations, even when arising out of the same incident, and, therefore, result in separate periods of revocation or suspension. Brown v. Director of Revenue, 772 S.W.2d 398, 400 (Mo.App. 1989); Greenwood v. Director of Revenue, 5 S.W.3d 604 (Mo.App. 1999).

Who handles the civil administrative refusal portion of my Missouri DUI / DWI case?

RSMo. Section 577.041 or 302.311 requires county prosecutors to handle civil refusal hearings, but attorneys for the Director of Revenue may appear on these cases.

What are the consequences for refusal of a chemical test?

There is a one year revocation for every separate refusal offense. There is no driving retests required if the driver's license is not expired over six (6) month.

After my Missouri DUI /DWI case, can I get a limited driving privilege to go to work during my one-year driver's license refusal suspension?

Driver's who receive a one-year refusal suspension to their Missouri driving privilege are sometime eligible for a limited driving privilege after the first ninety (90) days of the one-year refusal suspension for first refusal offense. Driver's are ineligible for a limited driving privilege for any second or subsequent refusal offense, and they cannot drive at all for one full year.

I had a refusal suspension to my Missouri driver's license several years ago. Can the refusal now be taken off my driving record?

Expungement is not ever possible for a civil refusal of a chemical test in Missouri.

Missouri DUI / DWI / BAC DRUNK DRIVING DEFENSE

FURTHER INFORMATION:

J. Matthew Guilfoil, The Guilfoil Law Group, L.L.C. 1656 Washington, Suite 220 Kansas City, Missouri 64108 (816) 842-3717 phone, 1-877-DWI-MATT Toll Free Number; Email: info@guilfoillawgroup.com.

Practice in the following Regions, Cities, and Counties in Missouri.

KANSAS CITY METROPOLITAN AREA

Cass County. Archie, Austin, Belton, Cleveland, East Lynne, Freeman, Garden City, Harrisonville, Lake Annette, Latour, Peculiar, Pleasant Hill, Raymore, Strasburg, West Line, 64012, 64078, 64080, 64083, 64090, 64701, 64725, 64734, 64743, 64746, 64747.

Clay County. Avondale, Birmingham, Claycomo, Crystal Lakes, Excelsior Estates, Excelsior Springs, Gladstone, Holt, Homestead Village, Kansas City, Kearney, Liberty, Mosby, North Kansas City, Pleasant Valley, Randolph, Smithville, Wood Heights. 64024, 64048, 64060, 64068, 64069, 64072, 64073, 64089, 64116, 64117, 64118, 64119, 64155, 64156, 64157, 64158, 64160, 64161, 64165, 64166, 64167.

Jackson County. Blues Springs, Buckner, Grain Valley, Grandview, Greenwood, Independence, Kansas City, Lake Lotawana, Lake Tapawingo, Lake Winnebago, Lee's Summit, Levasy, Lone Jack, Oak Grove, Raytown, Sibley, Sugar Creek. 64013, 64014, 64015, 64016, 64029, 64030, 64034, 64050, 64051, 64052, 64053, 64054, 64055, 64056, 64057, 64058, 64063, 64064, 64066, 64070, 64075, 64081, 64082, 64086, 64088, 64101, 64102, 64103, 64105, 64106, 64108, 64109, 64110, 64111, 64112, 64113, 64114, 64120, 64121, 64123, 64124, 64125, 64126, 64127, 64128, 64129, 64130, 64131, 64132, 64133, 64134, 64136, 64137, 64138, 64139, 64141, 64142, 64145, 64146, 64157, 64148, 64149, 64179, 64188, 64191, 64192, 64196, 64199, 64171, 64172.

Platte County. Camden Point, Dearborn, Farley, Edgerton, Ferrelview, Houston Lake, Kansas City, Lake Waukomis, Parkville, Platte City, Platte Woods, Riverside, Waldron, Weatherby Lake, Weston. 64018, 64028, 64079, 64092, 64098, 64108, 64150, 64151, 64152, 64153, 64154, 64163, 64164, 64168, 64190, 64195, 64439, 64444.

Ray County. Camden, Hardin, Henrietta, Elmira, Lawson, Orrick, Rayville, Richmond. 64017, 64035, 64036, 64062, 64077, 64084, 64085.

Other Areas of Service in Missouri

Andrew County. Rea, Rosendale, Savannah. 64480, 64483, 64485.

Bates County. Adrian, Amoret, Amsterdam, Butler, Drexel, Foster, Hume, Stotesbury, Passaic, Rich Hill, Rockville. 64720, 64722, 64723, 64730, 64742, 64745, 64752, 64777, 64779, 64780.

Boone County. Ashland, Centralia, Columbia, Hallsville, Harrisburg, Hartsburg, McBaine, Rocheport, Sturgeon. 65010, 65039, 65201, 65202, 65203, 65205, 65240, 65255, 65256, 65279, 65284.

Buchanan County. Agency, De Kalb, Easton, Faucett, Rushville, St. Joseph. 64400, 64401, 64443, 64448, 64484, 64501, 64502, 64503, 64504, 64505, 64506, 64507, 64508.

Caldwell County. Braymer, Breckenridge, Cowgill, Hamilton, Kidder, Kingston. 64624, 64625, 64637, 64644, 64649, 64650.

Carroll County. Bogard, Bosworth, Carrollton, De Witt, Hale, Norborne, Stet, Tina, Wakenda. 64622, 64623, 64633, 64639, 64643, 64668, 64680, 64682, 64687.

Chariton County. Mendon, Rothville, Sumner. 64660, 64676, 64681.

Clinton County. Cameron, Gower, Lathrop, Plattsburg, Trimble, Turney. 64429, 64454, 64465, 64477, 64492, 64493.

Cooper County. Blackwater, Boonville, Bunceton, Otterville, Pilot Grove, Prairie Home, Wooldridge. 65068, 65233, 65237.

Daviess County. Altamount, Coffey, Gallatin, Jameson, Jamesport, Lock Springs, Pattonsburg, Winston. 64620, 64636, 64640, 64647, 64648, 64654, 64670, 64689.

De Kalb County. Amity, Clarksdale, Fairport, Hemple, Maysville, Osborn, Stewartsville, Union Star, Weatherby. 64422, 64430, 64447, 64469, 64474, 64490, 64494, 64497.

Gentry County. Albany, Darlington, Gentry, King City, McFall, Stanberry. 64402, 64438, 64453, 64463, 64489, 64657.

Grundy County. Galt, Laredo, Spickard, Trenton. 64641, 64652, 64679, 64683.

Harrison County. Bethany, Blythedale, Brimson, Cainsville, Eagleville, Gilman City, Hatfield, Martinsville, Mount Moriah, New Hampton, Ridgeway. 64424, 64426, 64442, 64458, 64467, 64471, 64481, 64632, 64642.

Henry County. Blairstown, Calhoun, Clinton, Creighton, Deepwater, Montrose, Tightwad, Urich, Windsor. 64726, 64735, 64739, 64740, 64770, 64788, 65323, 65360.

Holt County. Bigelow, Corning, Craig, Fortescue. 64437.

Howard County. Armstrong, Fayette, Franklin, Glasgow, New Franklin. 65230, 65248, 65250, 65254, 65274.

Johnson County. Centerview, Holden, Warrensburg, Chilhowee, Kingsville, Leeton, Whiteman Air Force Base, Knob Noster. 64019, 64040, 64061, 64093, 64733, 64761, 65305, 65336.

Lafayette County. Alma, Bates City, Concordia, Corder, Dover, Higginsville, Lexington, Mayview, Napoleon, Odessa, Waverly, Wellington. 64001, 64011, 64020, 64021, 64022, 64037, 64067, 64071, 64074, 64076, 64096, 64097.

Linn County. Brookfield, Browning, Buckin, Laclede, Linneus, Marceline, Meadville, New Boston, Purdin, St. Catherine. 63557, 64628, 64630, 64631, 64653, 64658, 64659, 64674.

Livingston County. Avalon, Chillicothe, Chula, Dawn, Ludlow, Mooresville, Utica, Wheeling. 64601, 64635, 64638, 64656, 64664, 64686, 64688. Macon County. Anabel, Atlanta, Bevier, Callao, Elmer, Ethel, Excello, La Plata, Macon, New Cambria. 63431, 63530, 63532, 63534, 63538, 63539, 63549, 63552, 63558, 65247.

Mercer County. Mercer, Princeton. 64661, 64673.

Pettis County. Green Ridge, Houstonia, Hughesville, La Monte, Mora, Sedalia, Smithton. 65301, 65302, 65332, 65333, 65334, 65337, 65345, 65350.

Putnam County. Livonia, Lucerne, Powersville, Unionville, Worthington. 63551, 63565, 63567, 64655, 64672.

Saline County. Arrow Rock, Blackburn, Gilliam, Grand Pass, Malta Bend, Marshall, Napton, Miami, Nelson, Slater, Sweet Springs. 65320, 65321, 65330, 65339, 65340, 65344, 65347, 65349, 65351.

Sullivan County. Green Castle, Green City, Harris, Humphreys, Milan, Newton, Pollock, Winigan. 63544, 63545, 63556, 63560, 63566, 64645, 64646, 64667.

Worth County. Allendale, Denver, Grant City, Sheridan, Worth.

Websites:

http://Missouri-dui-dwi-defense.com;

http://www.drunkdrivingdefense.com (Missouri Affiliate);

http://www.dui-dwi.com (Missouri Affiliate);

http://www.guilfoillawgroup.com.

Update this Section | Other  Legislation in Missouri

Add a Link to a Case or List of Cases for this Section

This is not the official web site for the  Missouri legislature. 

20070106003143

 

Add a Section

 

382

 

 

 

| Privacy |

  WARNING: All information contained herein is provided for the purpose of providing basic information only and should not be construed as formal legal advice. The authors disclaim any and all liability resulting from reliance upon such information. You are strongly encouraged to seek professional legal advice before relying upon any of the information contained herein. Legal advice should be sought directly from a properly retained lawyer or attorney.

Warning: This is NOT a government web site.