Misener v. Director of Revenue

7 Citing cases

  1. McFall v. Director, Dept. of Revenue

    162 S.W.3d 526 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 5 times

    "These showings must be made by a preponderance of the evidence." Misener v. Dir. of Revenue, 13 S.W.3d 666, 668 (Mo.App. 2000) (overruled in part by Verdoorn v. Dir. of Revenue, 119 S.W.3d 543 (Mo. 2003)). However, the "level of proof necessary to show probable cause under section 302.505 is substantially less than that required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

  2. Verdoorn v. Director of Revenue

    119 S.W.3d 543 (Mo. 2003)   Cited 78 times
    Noting that Missouri law requires an arrest supported by probable cause before an officer may conduct an alcohol concentration test

    Smith v. Director of Revenue, 13 S.W.3d 700, 705 (Mo.App. 2000); Misener v. Director of Revenue, 13 S.W.3d 666, 668 (Mo.App. 2000); Prozorowski v. Director of Revenue, 12 S.W.3d 405, 407 (Mo.App. 2000);

  3. Shanks v. Dir. of Revenue

    534 S.W.3d 381 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 7 times
    Finding probable cause where appellant admitted to consuming alcohol before accident and where officer knew accident occurred that morning even though exact time of crash was unknown

    The court found that "the gap in time between the accident and the arrest did not adversely affect the probable cause determination because ‘[the Director of Revenue] is not required to prove the time an accident occurred’ in situations such as these." Id. (quoting Misener v. Director of Revenue , 13 S.W.3d 666, 668 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) ). Thus, the court held that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to conclude that the highway patrolman had probable cause to arrest McFall for driving while intoxicated.

  4. Findley v. Director of Revenue

    204 S.W.3d 722 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that an individual's "refusal to submit to PBT is evidence supporting a reasonable belief by [an arresting officer] that [the individual] was intoxicated"

    That being the case, the two-hour interval between the accident and the arrest did not adversely affect Finley's probable cause determination. See McFall v. Director of Revenue, 162 S.W.3d 526, 532-33 (Mo.App. 2005); Misener v. Director of Revenue, 13 S.W.3d 666, 668 (Mo.App. 2000), overruled in part by Verdoorn v. Director of Revenue, 119 S.W.3d 543 (Mo. banc 2003). Point II is denied, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

  5. Verdoorn v. Director of Revenue

    No. WD 60784 (Mo. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2002)

    002); Kennedy v. Dir. of Revenue , 73 S.W.3d 85, 87 (Mo.App.S.D. 2002); McCoy v. Dir. of Revenue , 71 S.W.3d 688, 690 (Mo.App.S.D. 2002); Duing v. Dir. of Revenue , 59 S.W.3d 537, 539 (Mo.App.E.D. 2001); Smyth v. Dir. of Revenue , 57 S.W.3d 927, 930 (Mo.App.S.D. 2001); Smith v. Dir. of Revenue , 56 S.W.3d 464, 467 (Mo.App.S.D. 2001); Daniels v. Dir. of Revenue , 48 S.W.3d 42, 44 (Mo.App.S.D. 2001); Phelps v. Dir. of Revenue , 47 S.W.3d 395, 399 (Mo.App.E.D. 2001); Hollingshead v. Dir. of Revenue , 36 S.W.3d 443, 446 (Mo.App.E.D. 2001); Booth v. Dir. of Revenue , 34 S.W.3d 221, 223 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000); Meyer , 34 S.W.3d at 233; Riggin v. Dir. of Revenue , 25 S.W.3d 695, 697-98 (Mo.App.S.D. 2000); Hansen v. Dir. of Revenue, 22 S.W.3d 770, 773 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000); Kobayshi v. Dir. of Revenue , 22 S.W.3d 247, 249 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000); Hamm , 20 S.W.3d at 926; Wilcuttv. Dir. of Revenue , 18 S.W.3d 548, 550-51 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000); Harper v.Dir. of Revenue , 14 S.W.3d 614, 616 (Mo.App.E.D. 1999); Misener v. Dir.of Revenue , 13 S.W.3d 666, 668 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000); Prozorowski v. Dir. ofRevenue , 12 S.W.3d 405, 407 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000); Childs v. Dir. ofRevenue , 3 S.W.3d 399, 401 (Mo.App.E.D. 1999); Rhodes , 994 S.W.2d at 599; Combs v. Dir. of Revenue , 991 S.W.2d 690, 692 (Mo.App.E.D. 1999); Devereux v. Dir. of Revenue , 990 S.W.2d 658, 660 (Mo.App.E.D. 1999); Guccione v. Dir. of Revenue, 988 S.W.2d 649, 652 (Mo.App.E.D. 1999); White v. Dir. of Revenue , 986 S.W.2d 475, 476 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998); Adkinsv. Dir. of Revenue , 985 S.W.2d 407, 409 (Mo.App.E.D. 1999); Kafoury v.Dir. of Revenue , 983 S.W.2d 188, 189 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998); Hurley v. Dir.of Revenue , 982 S.W.2d 694, 696 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998); Farin v. Dir. ofRevenue , 982 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998); Bramer v. Dir. ofRevenue , 982 S.W.2d 793, 794 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998); Plank v. Dir. ofRevenue , 982 S.W.2d 811, 814 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998); Haas v. Dir. ofRevenue , 975 S.W.2d 483, 484 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998); Anderson v. Dir. ofRevenue , 969 S.W.2d 899, 902 (Mo.App.E.D. 1998); Green, 961 S.W.2d at 938.

  6. Hall v. Director of Revenue

    72 S.W.3d 231 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 4 times

    This evidence was sufficient to establish probable cause for Driver's arrest for DWI, satisfying the first element of the Director's prima facie case for suspension. Krieger v. Director of Revenue, 14 S.W.3d 697, 702 (Mo.App. 2000); Misener v. Director of Revenue, 13 S.W.3d 666, 668-69 (Mo.App. 2000). Having satisfied the first element of the prima facie test we turn to the second, which is proof of the blood alcohol level by weight over ten-hundreths of one percent.

  7. Oates v. Director of Revenue

    67 S.W.3d 664 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 5 times

    Id. "An arresting officer need not actually observe a person driving in order to arrest the person for driving while intoxicated." Misener v. Director of Revenue, 13 S.W.3d 666, 668 (Mo.App.E.D. 2000). An arresting officer may establish probable cause that a person was driving from the person's admissions alone.