Some common DWI issues have come up in a recent case in Ladue. Police say that a 25-year-old man from St. Louis was passed out in his car when officers approached his vehicle in a parking lot. He was allegedly behind the wheel, and the engine was running. The man was charged with persistent-offender DWI because, if he is convicted, it would be his third offense. He was previously convicted of drunk driving in 2012 and in 2008. As is usually the case with such charges, police said the man’s eyes were bloodshot; his speech was slurred; and his eyes were watery. He allegedly required assistance to stand and wasn’t able to do a field sobriety test. He is also said to have refused a breath test. Interestingly, even after police got a search warrant for a breath test, the results of the test weren’t released to a local news source. Usually, police are all too willing publicize the results of a breathalyzer. The young man was taken to St. Louis County jail, and his bond was set at $10,000. Under Missouri law, drivers give “implied consent” to a breath test. If you refuse a breath test, the arresting officer is obliged to tell you the possible repercussions. If you refuse anyway, then doing so can be used against you and you could lose your license. After you refuse, you are also afforded a period of 20 minutes to contact a lawyer and weigh your options. Generally, a first refusal will result in a license suspension of one year. Another important thing to keep in mind is that a driver can still be convicted of DWI, even if the vehicle is in park when police arrive. This may not be the case in every situation, though, and any Missouri resident facing a similar predicament would do well to speak with a DWI attorney who can clarify the available legal options. Source: Ladue-Frontenac Patch, “Third DWI Charge to Man Passed Out Behind Wheel at Schnucks,” Joe Scott, Feb. 7, 2013

In Missouri, you can be charged with felony DWI in a couple of situations. If you have two prior drunken driving convictions, a third conviction will be regarded as a felony. Felonies, of course, carry significantly tougher penalties than misdemeanors. A first or second DWI offense is typically treated as a misdemeanor; that is, unless a DWI crash happens and a person is injured. Even if it’s your first DWI charge, an injury to a passenger or some other person will result in a felony charge.

These concerns are likely on the mind of a young woman who was recently charged with felony DWI in St. Louis County. The 29-year-old has two prior convictions for drunk driving — one in Arkansas and another in Kirkwood. Her case also illustrates how other states will cooperate with Missouri prosecutors to file drunk driving charges.

The arrest took place in Wildwood, where officers claimed the woman violated traffic laws and failed field sobriety tests. A news report does not indicate whether police administered a breath test or a blood test. Such tests tend to provide stronger evidence for conviction than motor-coordination tests, which can be highly subjective for police officers, but the accuracy of breath tests and blood tests can also be called into question.

A third DWI in Missouri carries serious penalties, such as heavy fines, jail time and loss of driving privileges. With each subsequent DWI conviction after the third, the class of felony increases, as do the penalties. A fifth drunk driving conviction involves a mandatory two-year prison sentence.

Clearly, with felony DWI allegations, the stakes are high in Missouri, and anyone who is facing such charges will need an aggressive legal advocate to mitigate negative consequences. The last thing a defendant should do is simply let prosecutors have their way.

Source: Webster Groves Patch, “Webster Woman Faces Third DWI Charge in Wildwood,” Joe Scott, Jan. 29, 2013

When a person is pulled over on suspicion of drunk driving, the common practice is for an officer to ask the driver to submit to a breathalyzer blood-alcohol test. While other sobriety tests such as field coordination examinations and direct syringe extraction of blood for medical testing are available, most often the breathalyzer test is relied upon to determine intoxication.

Drivers in Missouri, indeed in all 50 states, have the right to refuse a breathalyzer test after being pulled over, unless an officer has obtained a warrant for the test’s use. Usually this refusal results in an automatic suspension of drivers’ licenses.

However, in some cases, officers might ignore both a driver’s requests and the absence of a warrant, moving forward with breath and/or blood tests at their own discretion. Just such a case, stemming from an October 2010 DUI investigation, has now made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Pulled over by a Missouri patrolman on Oct. 3, 2010, a Cape Girardeau man refused to submit to a breathalyzer test, but was taken by an officer to a nearby hospital and given a direct, needle-based blood test anyway. The results were clear: the man’s blood-alcohol level sat at .154 percent-well above the legal limit of .08.

A local judge initially threw out the hospital’s test result on account of the lack of a warrant, but appeals and contestations have brought the matter all the way to the highest court in the land. An attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union, who has come to the support of the Missouri defendant, has stressed drivers’ Fourth Amendment right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures.

Justice Sotomayor made note of the difficult precedent that may be set by a ruling that allows breathalyzer testing despite a driver’s refusal and the absence of a warrant, noting that such approval could quickly be extended to syringe tests-a highly invasive search.

The outcome of this Supreme Court will have far-reaching implications for all DUI and DWI defendants, both in Missouri and across the country. When the complicated legal questions of warrants, consent, and constitutional rights come into play, the heightened insight of a drunk driving defense attorney can help guide a defendant to the most favorable outcome.

Source: St. Louis Beacon, “Supreme Court hears arguments in issouri case involving warrantless blood test,” Robert Koenig, Jan. 9, 2013