Misener v. Director of Revenue

3 Citing cases

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.