Bartholomew v. Dir. of Revenue, ED 101750
| Decision Date | 26 May 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. ED 101750, No. ED 101751,ED 101750 |
| Citation | 462 S.W.3d 465 |
| Parties | Matthew S. Bartholomew, Respondent, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Chris Koster, P.O. Box 475, Jefferson City, MO 65105, for Appellant.
Travis L. Noble, 8000 Maryland, Suite 350, Clayton, MO 63105, for Respondent.
The Director of Revenue of the State of Missouri (“Director”) appeals from the judgments of the trial court that ordered the Director to remove the administrative-alcohol suspension from Matthew Bartholomew's (“Driver”) driving record and to reinstate Driver's driving privileges.1 We reverse and remand.
On October 1, 2012, Sergeant Terry Potter (“Sergeant Potter”) of the Missouri Highway patrol observed a vehicle exceeding the posted speed limit and initiated a traffic stop of the car, which was operated by Driver. Sergeant Potter noticed a strong smell of alcohol coming from the car, and asked Driver if he had been drinking. Driver told Sergeant Potter that he had a few drinks about an hour prior to the traffic stop. Driver agreed to submit to field sobriety tests. Sergeant Potter administered several tests, including the horizontal gaze nystagmus
(“HGN”) test, the walk-and-turn test, and the one-leg-stand test. Driver exhibited 6 out of 6 signs of intoxication on the HGN test, 4 out of 8 signs of intoxication on the walk-and-turn test, and 2 out of 4 signs of intoxication on the one-leg-stand test. Sergeant Potter asked Driver to rate his own intoxication on a scale of 1 to 10, to which Driver replied he was a 5 or 6.
Sergeant Potter arrested Driver and conveyed him to Troop C Headquarters, where he informed Driver of Missouri's Implied Consent Law and requested a breath sample. Driver complied, and the breathalyzer indicated that he had a blood alcohol content (“BAC”) of 0.098%. Trooper J.T. Hedrick had performed maintenance on the breathalyzer used by Driver on September 7, 2012. Trooper Hedrick's maintenance report reflected that the breathalyzer was performing within established limits.
Director suspended Driver's driving privileges after an administrative hearing. As a consequence of the administrative suspension, Driver's commercial driver's license (“CDL”) was disqualified for one year. Driver filed petitions for a trial de novo from the administrative suspension of his driving privileges and for review of the disqualification of his CDL, both in the Circuit Court of St. Charles County, Missouri.
The matter was tried in the circuit court on February 21, 2014. The principal issue at trial was the admission of Director's Exhibit A, which included Sergeant Potter's alcohol influence report, the breathalyzer maintenance report and supporting documents. Driver made a foundational objection to the admission of Exhibit A. The trial court admitted Exhibit A into evidence with the exception of the breathalyzer test result, which it deferred ruling on. Driver argued that the maintenance of the breathalyzer should have been done in accordance with the newly amended Department of Health & Senior Services (“DHSS”) regulations that were in effect at the time of trial, which apparently required confirmation testing at three standards, 0.10 percent, 0.08 percent, and 0.04 percent. Director argued that the DHSS regulations that were in effect at the time that of the maintenance of the breathalyzer governed. The trial court expressed its belief, without ruling at that time, that if standards become stricter in favor of a defendant between arrest and the date of trial that the stricter standards would apply retroactively.
The trial court issued judgments on March 25, 2014 in both the suspension of driving privileges and disqualification of CDL cases. In both judgments, it found that Driver objected to the admission of the breathalyzer results on the ground that Director failed to present evidence of compliance with the appropriate state regulations. The trial court sustained Driver's objection, finding that the law in effect at the time of the hearing “mandated that the breath analyzer
be calibrated at all three values” and that Director merely presented evidence that a single standard simulator solution was used for a single value, 0.10 percent, and presented no evidence of the use any other standard simulator solutions. The trial court found that Director failed to present sufficient credible evidence of compliance with the state regulations and with § 577.020.3 RSMo (Cum. Supp. 2011).2 The trial court found that Director failed to meet the burden of providing sufficient credible evidence that Driver drove with a BAC at or above 0.08 percent. It specifically did not address the issue of probable cause.3 The trial court found in favor of Driver and ordered Director to remove immediately the administrative-alcohol suspension from Driver's driving record and to reinstate his driving privileges to the extent otherwise allowable by law.
Director filed a Motion for a New Trial on April 24, 2014 in which the Director argued that the regulations in effect at the time of the maintenance of the breathalyzer on September 7, 2012, applied, and that version of the regulations controlled pursuant to 19 CSR 25–30.051(8) (2012). The trial court held a hearing on this motion, wherein Driver and Director recapitulated the arguments that each made at trial regarding the applicable regulations and standards. It found that DHSS passed new regulations effective December 30, 2012 that required calibration of breath testing instruments using three simulated solutions instead of merely one, and that this was a positive change in the law on calibration of breath testing instruments. It further found that due process required that Driver receive the benefit of the positive change, “even though he was arrested and provided a breath sample prior the date the new regulations came into effect.” Accordingly, the trial court denied Director's motion.
Director now appeals from the trial court's judgments of March 25, 2014 and the appeals were consolidated in this Court.4
In her sole point relied on Director contends that the trial court misapplied the law in finding that maintenance on the breathalyzer was not performed in compliance with DHSS regulations in effect at the time of trial because DHSS regulations provide that maintenance reports shall be considered valid if performed in compliance with the regulations in effect at the time that the maintenance actually was done. Director argues that the maintenance report of Trooper Hedrick was completed in compliance with the regulations in effect when the maintenance was performed, including the regulation specifying that only one simulator solution need be used when performing a calibration check of the breath analyzer
.
We review a trial court's judgment reinstating driving privileges following an administrative suspension or revocation under the standard of Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). White v. Director of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298, 307–08 (Mo. banc 2010). This Court will affirm the decision of the trial court if it is supported by substantial evidence, it is not against the weight of the evidence, and it does not erroneously or declare or apply the law. Id. We review declarations of law de novo . Moore v. Director of Revenue, 351 S.W.3d 286, 287 (Mo.App.2011).
It is the Director's burden to establish a prima facie case for suspension of a driver's license by introducing evidence that at the time of a driver's arrest: (1) there was probable cause for arresting the driver for violating an alcohol-related offense; and (2) the driver's BAC exceeded the legal limit of 0.08 percent. § 302.505.1; White, 321 S.W.3d at 309 n.11. It is the Director's burden to establish a basis for the revocation or suspension by a preponderance of the evidence. § 302.535.1; Irwin v. Director of Revenue, 365 S.W.3d 266, 268 (Mo.App.2012).
The Director may introduce evidence of a breathalyzer test to establish that a driver's BAC exceeded the legal limit. Irwin, 365 S.W.3d at 268–69. To lay a foundation for admission of the breathalyzer test into evidence, the Director must establish that the test was performed: (1) using the approved techniques and methods of the Division of Health; (2) by an operator holding a valid permit; (3) on equipment and devices approved by the Division of Health. Id. at 269.
The question of law at issue is whether, under the applicable regulations, the breathalyzer had to be tested one time at one concentration or at three concentrations.
Administrative rules and regulations are interpreted under the same principles of construction as statutes. Beverly Enterprises–Missouri, Inc. v. Department of Social Services, Division of Medical Services, 349 S.W.3d 337, 352 (Mo.App.2008) ; Trumble v. Director of Revenue, 985 S.W.2d 815, 819 (Mo.App.1998). Words are given their ordinary, plain meaning. Beverly Enterprises, 349 S.W.3d at 352. Statutory interpretation is a question of law subject to de novo review. Bender v. Director of Revenue, 320 S.W.3d 167, 169 (Mo.App.2010).
For breathalyzer results to be admissible, the machine used to measure the level of alcohol has to be properly maintained and tested. At the time of Driver's arrest on October 1, 2012, the pertinent regulation was 19 CSR 25–30.051 (2004), which provided that:
(1) Standard simulator solutions, used to verify and calibrate evidential breath analyzers
at the 0.10% or 0.100% level, shall be solutions from approved suppliers.
(2) Standard simulator solutions, used to verify and calibrate evidential breath analyzers
at the 0.04% or 0.040% level, shall be solutions from approved suppliers.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- McGough v. Dir. of Revenue
-
Rundell v. Dir. of Revenue
...suspension or revocation under the standard of Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).” Bartholomew v. Dir. Of Revenue, 462 S.W.3d 465, 469 (Mo.App.E.D.2015) (citing White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298, 307–08 (Mo. banc 2010) ). We will affirm the trial court's judgment un......
-
Williams v. Dir. of Revenue
...White v. Dir. of Revenue , 321 S.W.3d 298, 302 (Mo. banc 2010). "We review declarations of law de novo." Bartholomew v. Dir. of Revenue , 462 S.W.3d 465, 469 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015). Section 302.505 provides the Director shall suspend an individual's driving privileges upon determining an indi......
-
Henke v. Dir. of Revenue
...The construction of an administrative rule or regulation is a legal question that we review de novo. Bartholomew v. Dir. of Revenue, 462 S.W.3d 465, 470 (Mo. App. E.D. 2015).In order to support the suspension of Henke's driving privileges, the Director had to show by a preponderance of the ......