Sunday, May 27, 2007
Missouri Revised StatutesChapter 577 Public Safety Offenses Section 577.020 August 28, 2006
577.020. 1. Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent to, subject to the provisions of sections 577.019 to 577.041, a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, saliva or urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol or drug content of the person's blood pursuant to the following circumstances:
(1) If the person is arrested for any offense arising out of acts which the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe were committed while the person was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition; or
(2) If the person is under the age of twenty-one, has been stopped by a law enforcement officer, and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that such person was driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or more by weight; or
(3) If the person is under the age of twenty-one, has been stopped by a law enforcement officer, and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that such person has committed a violation of the traffic laws of the state, or any political subdivision of the state, and such officer has reasonable grounds to believe, after making such stop, that such person has a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or greater;
(4) If the person is under the age of twenty-one, has been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint or roadblock and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that such person has a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or greater;
(5) If the person, while operating a motor vehicle, has been involved in a motor vehicle collision which resulted in a fatality or a readily apparent serious physical injury as defined in section 565.002, RSMo, or has been arrested as evidenced by the issuance of a uniform traffic ticket for the violation of any state law or county or municipal ordinance with the exception of equipment violations contained in chapter 306, RSMo, or similar provisions contained in county or municipal ordinances; or
(6) If the person, while operating a motor vehicle, has been involved in a motor vehicle collision which resulted in a fatality or serious physical injury as defined in section 565.002, RSMo.
The test shall be administered at the direction of the law enforcement officer whenever the person has been arrested or stopped for any reason.
2. The implied consent to submit to the chemical tests listed in subsection 1 of this section shall be limited to not more than two such tests arising from the same arrest, incident or charge.
3. Chemical analysis of the person's breath, blood, saliva, or urine to be considered valid pursuant to the provisions of sections 577.019 to 577.041 shall be performed according to methods approved by the state department of health and senior services by licensed medical personnel or by a person possessing a valid permit issued by the state department of health and senior services for this purpose.
4. The state department of health and senior services shall approve satisfactory techniques, devices, equipment, or methods to be considered valid pursuant to the provisions of sections 577.019 to 577.041 and shall establish standards to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals to conduct analyses and to issue permits which shall be subject to termination or revocation by the state department of health and senior services.
5. The person tested may have a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person at the choosing and expense of the person to be tested, administer a test in addition to any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person shall not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer.
6. Upon the request of the person who is tested, full information concerning the test shall be made available to such person. Full information is limited to the following:
(1) The type of test administered and the procedures followed;
(2) The time of the collection of the blood or breath sample or urine analyzed;
(3) The numerical results of the test indicating the alcohol content of the blood and breath and urine;
(4) The type and status of any permit which was held by the person who performed the test;
(5) If the test was administered by means of a breath-testing instrument, the date of performance of the most recent required maintenance of such instrument.
Full information does not include manuals, schematics, or software of the instrument used to test the person or any other material that is not in the actual possession of the state. Additionally, full information does not include information in the possession of the manufacturer of the test instrument.
7. Any person given a chemical test of the person's breath pursuant to subsection 1 of this section or a field sobriety test may be videotaped during any such test at the direction of the law enforcement officer. Any such video recording made during the chemical test pursuant to this subsection or a field sobriety test shall be admissible as evidence at either any trial of such person for either a violation of any state law or county or municipal ordinance, or any license revocation or suspension proceeding pursuant to the provisions of chapter 302, RSMo.(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1982 S.B. 513, A.L. 1983 S.B. 318 & 135, A.L. 1996 H.B. 1169 & 1271 merged with S.B. 722, A.L. 1998 S.B. 634, A.L. 2001 H.B. 144 & 46, A.L. 2006 S.B. 872, et al.)
(1985) The arrested person does not have a choice of which statutory test to take. If a choice were allowed, the person could avoid taking the test by choosing one which was unavailable. Kiso v. King (A.), 691 S.W.2d 374.
(1987) Department of Health rules on approved methods and techniques for chemical analysis of blood alcohol relate to evidence, are procedural and may be applied retrospectively. State v. Kummer, 741 S.W.2d 285 (Mo.App.E.D.).
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Why do we continue to tolerate drunks who drive, crash and kill people?
Drunken driving is a huge problem in Ohio. For every 10 cars that drive past you, one is likely to be driven by someone convicted of driving under the influence.
After a run of fatalities at the hands of repeat offenders, the General Assembly is belatedly taking action.
Last week, the Ohio Senate unanimously passed a bill requiring Ohioans with multiple drunken-driving convictions to take breath tests when stopped by police, and to wear bracelets to monitor alcohol levels through their sweat.
Blood-alcohol tests would be mandatory for anyone with two or more DUI convictions.
The measure moves to the House, which likely will consider a proposal that would require anyone convicted of drunken driving to install an ignition-locking device. The device won't allow the car to start if the driver has been drinking.
While they are at it, legislators should close the loophole that ties judges' hands when it comes to repeat offenders. A man in Cincinnati only got six months in jail for his eighth DUI in 30 years because of the time gaps between his convictions.
It's impossible to eliminate drunken driving entirely. But tougher laws and greater vigilance among us all can reduce the number of intoxicated drivers - and the deaths they inevitably cause.
|Post a Commen|
- ► 2011 (289)
- Lindsay Lohan’s DUI Feature Story
- Missouri Chemical tests for alcohol content of b
- Man busted while drunk driving in wheelchair | Odd...
- Scalia's daughter denied bid for restricted licens...
- No permit for Scalia's daughter :: CHICAGO SUN-TIM...
- Prosecutor fired after pot arrest - 05/17/2007 - M...
- Ohio needs to toughen DUI laws
- ▼ May (7)