With the Memorial Day weekend occurring just days ago, authorities throughout Missouri and the rest of the nation say they are encouraging drivers to stay safe during some of the most dangerous days on the American roads. In Texas, officers say they are ramping up efforts to prevent drunk driving by enforcing their “No Refusal” policy. That means that if a driver refuses to provide a breath sample during a DWI traffic stop, officers are able to get a warrant forcing the driver to comply. A blood test is also an option.

Many drivers may not know that their state has a no refusal policy. Although refusing a Breathalyzer at first may seem like a wise plan, officers are given far more resources to obtain samples from non-compliant drivers than they had in the past. With these processes becoming increasingly streamlined, it is important for drivers to know their rights during a traffic stop. Missouri drivers do not have to worry about no refusal laws, as our state allows alleged drunk drivers to avoid taking a Breathalyzer in exchange for submitting to a license suspension.

Some of the more egregious drunk driving stories to come out of Texas jurisdictions over the Memorial Day weekend include that of a man who was found sitting at a stop at a green light. That man was hunched over his steering wheel, sleeping. Officers determined that he was likely over the legal limit for driving. Another motorist plowed through some barricades in Austin; when that man was caught, he was found with soiled clothing, and he had thrown up on himself.

It is important to remember that refusing a Breathalyzer test does not mean that you will not face legal consequences. In fact, those who refuse such tests can still be convicted of DWI. Although breath test refusal can be useful in some cases, it is a strategy that should be discussed with a legal professional.

Source: KTBC Fox 7, “No Refusal: Austin DWI arrests include sleeping at red light and driving past barricades” No author given, May. 24, 2014

The son of a Missouri mayor is facing allegations of careless driving in connection with a December encounter with officers. The man, age 25, had initially been suspected of drunken driving, but the charges were downgraded after the initial DWI traffic stop. Prosecutors in the case said they did not have enough evidence to bring DWI charges against the son of Kansas City Mayor Sly James.

Authorities report that the man was pulled over in mid-December after officers saw him drive two tires of his vehicle over a curb. The driver said he simply “glanced a curb,” and he should not have been charged with a crime. Officers reported that the man smelled faintly of alcohol and showed signs of being intoxicated. He also failed field sobriety tests. The man was taken into custody after he refused a breath test. The driver will now be subject to a revoked license because of that refusal.

This is not the first time that the man has faced alcohol-related driving allegations. He was previously convicted of DUI in Johnson County and was arrested on other alcohol-related allegations in Jackson County. The most recent incident marks the second time that the driver has been arrested on suspicion of DUI but not charged with that crime.

Officers said they thought they had enough evidence to bring the drunk driving charge, despite the breath test refusal. The driver failed three sobriety tests, including an eye test, evaluations for turning and walking, and a test in which he stood on one leg. The breath test would have just been an additional piece of evidence. Still, the prosecutor is not bringing alcohol-related charges against the driver.

This is an excellent example of the fact that an arrest for drunk driving does not always lead to a conviction. In fact, those arrested on suspicion of drunk driving are not always charged for that crime at all. Missouri criminal defense attorneys may be able to provide more information to those who are facing allegations for refusing a Breathalyzer and other DUI-related accusations.

Source: The Kansas City Star, “Police cite son of Kansas City mayor for careless driving after he refused breath test” Christine Vendel, Feb. 07, 2014

Missouri law enforcement officers have announced a new tactic to combat drunk driving in the state. Police in St. Louis say they will start using a “No Refusal Zone” technique during traffic stops this holiday season, prohibiting motorists from opting out of Breathalyzer tests. Those pulled over for DWI traffic stops will be required to submit to a blood test if they refuse to take a breath analysis at the scene.

A system has already been set up to accommodate drivers who are found to be refusing a Breathalyzer; a blood draw will occur within an estimated 90 minutes of a defendant’s arrest. Law enforcement leaders in the city say they think such a program is perfect for St. Louis, even though other cities have struggled; St. Louis is geographically condensed, however, which should make it easier to obtain quick blood samples from those transported to hospitals or holding facilities.

City officers say they arrest about two dozen drunk driving defendants every month. About half of those individuals refuse to take the Breathalyzer test, even though their driver’s license is automatically suspended for that refusal. Nationwide, about 20 percent of DWI defendants refuse to take blood alcohol content tests. Drunk drivers are harder to prosecute without this kind of quantitative evidence, though convictions are not impossible.

Authorities report that a large number of breath test refusals come from people who have previous DWI convictions. Missouri drivers who fail to submit to the test lose their licenses for a year, but they often avoid drunk-driving charges because of a dearth of evidence. In fact, blood test results were excluded entirely from one driver’s DWI case in 2013 after evidence showed that the arresting officer illegally obtained the test without a warrant.

Missouri drivers do not have to submit to a blood test without the issuance of a relevant warrant. Further, criminal defense attorneys in the area say that warrants for this analysis may be far less common than anticipated, especially for first-time offenders. Defendants who have questions about their legal rights during a traffic stop may benefit from consulting with a qualified criminal defense attorney, who can help them learn more about their legal rights in state and municipal courts.

Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “St. Louis police impose ‘No Refusal Zone’ for suspected drunk drivers” Ken Leiser, Dec. 30, 2013

First, imagine being randomly pulled over by the police even though you have not done anything wrong. Then, picture yourself being forced to provide saliva, breath and even blood samples as part of a national transportation research study. That is exactly what is happening in jurisdictions throughout Missouri and the rest of the nation, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducts a federal research study about drunk driving. At least one municipality in Texas is refusing to participate in any additional research, though, after drivers complained en masse because of the unprovoked and invasive DWI traffic stops.

Officials in Fort Worth, Texas, say they will continue to opt out of any future research efforts, thanks to the backlash from area residents. The city’s police chief has even apologized to the drivers who were forced to the side of the road, where invasive physical samples were obtained in the name of science. Although participating in the survey was strictly voluntary, drivers interpreted the presence of police as a mandate for surrendering the physical samples. The drivers would not have been cited for breath test refusal in connection with the study, but that was not made clear to the affected motorists.

Experts in the field question the validity of the research study design, arguing that the methods may actually lead to arrests for drunk driving. In that situation, officers could be blamed for violating constitutional rights, especially considering the nature of the search. Legal gurus liken the study to unnecessary home invasion; just because we are interested in people’s behaviors in their houses, we are not permitted to break down doors to observe area residents.

Victims who have been unfairly searched or punished because of the random research stops may be entitled to compensation from the law enforcement departments that assisted with the study. In such cases, the drivers may face serious consequences even though they were unfairly searched. Those defendants’ rights should be protected, even though they may have been driving with a BAC higher than the legal limit.

Source: www.newsmax.com, “Motorist stops for breath, blood samples spur anger, apology” Cheryl K. Chumley, Dec. 03, 2013

In April the United States Supreme Court ruled that a police officer needed a search warrant to have blood drawn from a DWI suspect if the suspect refused to give a sample of his blood, usually after a breath test refusal. That was the McNeely case which seemed like a wholesale victory for everyone who cared about personal freedoms and also for those attorneys that practice drunk driving defense. However, there was language in the McNeely decision that can be construed to leave the door open to many possible scenarios where a search warrant may not be necessary for a police officer to have blood drawn.

There was worry by DWI defense attorneys, including myself, that the language of the McNeely decision was too narrow, especially because the decision by the court was a close one. A narrow decision of this nature could open the door for many exceptions that would carve away at the personal freedom to not have a search of your body conducted without probable cause and a search warrant signed by a judge.

Fortunately, the Missouri Court of Appeals – Southern District recently decided the case of State of Missouri v. Jason Reed, SD32465, where the court held that simply because a police officer is very busy on the night of an arrest is not an exception to the general rule laid out in McNeely. Although this seems like a pretty obvious decision by the court it is good to see the new case law start in the right directions. It will be important to continue to monitor cases involing a warrantless blood draw. Although many people thought McNeely would end the discussion of this issue, it may have just been the beginning.

To learn more about the consequences of a Breath Test Refusal and how to possibly avoid those consquences please visit our Breath Test Refusal page.

At this point in the year, the football season may not be on the radar of many people in Missouri. Yet a St. Louis Rams player is likely wondering how the upcoming season will be impacted by the sentence he recently received for drunk driving charges. In April, we covered the arrest and trial of Trumaine Johnson, and he was recently sentenced.

Before being sentenced, Johnson apparently made the decision to plead guilty on lower charges in order to receive a lightened sentence. According to reports, the plea agreement provided that the drunk driving charges were dropped and were replaced by charges for reckless driving and refusing a breath test.

There is no word as to why prosecutors pulled the drunk driving charges off the table, but apparently Johnson performed well in field sobriety tests before his arrest. Furthermore, the football player maintains that he wasn’t over the legal limit at the time he was pulled over.

Even though it wasn’t proven that he was guilty, this case shows that criminal charges can result from refusing to take a Breathalyzer test. This is part of implied consent laws enforced in many states, which penalize breath-test refusals. Anyone pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving should understand what penalties may exist for failing to comply with police orders, even if he or she isn’t legally intoxicated.

As a result of the plea bargain, Johnson was ordered to spend 90 days in jail, which he will likely serve at a later time. In addition, he was ordered to pay fines and perform community service. Accepting the deal prevented Johnson from having driving while intoxicated charges on his record, but his reputation may still be affected by public perception.

Source: Associated Press, “Rams’ Trumaine Johnson receives plea deal in drunken driving case,” May 15, 2013