Rinne v. Director of Revenue
| Decision Date | 07 March 2000 |
| Citation | 13 S.W.3d 658 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. W.D. 2000) Kenneth Olean Rinne, Respondent v. Director of Revenue, Appellant WD57054 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Morgan County, Hon. Patricia Scott
Opinion Summary: Director of Revenue appealed from an order granting Respondent's motion to dismiss the case to suspend his driver's license for driving while intoxicated. The trial court found the Director of Revenue had not proved Respondent was arrested upon probable cause that he was driving while intoxicated. The Court of Appeals, Lowenstein., J., held there was sufficient evidence to show probable cause for arrest based on the arresting officers' knowledge, reversed the judgment and remanded the case for trial.
The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from the order of the circuit court reinstating the driver's license of the respondent, Kenneth O. Rinne (Rinne), after it was administratively suspended for driving while intoxicated (DWI) pursuant to section 302.505, RSMo Cum. Supp, 1996. On appeal, the Director claims that the trial court erred in sustaining the respondent's motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause because the admissible evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite probable cause for the arrest.
The judgment is reversed.
In December 1997, Laurie police officer Jim Walker responded to a call notifying him of a wreck on County Road O in Morgan County. Officer Walker arrived at the scene and discovered that Rinne's truck had run off the left shoulder of the road and hit a tree fifty feet from the roadway. Officer Walker found Rinne in the driver's seat attempting to restart the totaled car. Rinne was hurt, mumbling and bleeding from the head. Officer Walker noticed a "moderate odor of intoxicants" emanating from Rinne.
Trooper William Surface of the Missouri Highway Patrol arrived thirty minutes after Officer Walker. Officer Walker conveyed to Trooper Surface that he believed Rinne was intoxicated. Rinne's injuries prevented field sobriety tests. Trooper Surface interviewed Rinne in the ambulance, asking him what had happened, and Rinne responded, "Nothing." Surface then asked if he had been driving alone and Rinne responded, "Yes." Finally, the trooper asked Rinne whether he had been drinking. Rinne replied that he had consumed "three beers." Trooper Surface also noticed a moderate odor of intoxicants on Rinne's breath and that he had watery eyes. Trooper Surface then arrested him for driving while intoxicated and asked Rinne to consent to a blood test at the hospital. Rinne agreed.
Section 302.505, RSMo Cum. Supp, 1996, authorizes the suspension or revocation of a person's license for driving while intoxicated and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
1. The department shall suspend or revoke the license of any person upon it's determination that the person was arrested upon probable cause to believe such person was driving a motor vehicle while the alcohol concentration in the person's blood, breath or urine was ten-hundredths of one percent or more by weight...
Therefore, the Director had the burden of proving a prima facie case for suspension of a person's license by presenting evidence that: (1) the driver was arrested upon probable cause that he or she was driving in violation of an alcohol-related offense; and (2) the driver had been driving with a blood alcohol content of .10 percent or greater. Haas v Dep't. of Revenue, 975 S.W.2d 483, 484 (Mo.App. 1998). These showings must be made by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.
After the Director had presented evidence, counsel for Mr. Rinne made a motion to dismiss, stating that:
. . . if the arresting officer, Trooper Corporal Surface did not have probable cause to arrest Kenneth O. Rinne for driving while intoxicated (then the case should be dismissed). That he (Trooper Surface) has testified in a manner, which he is not definite, he did not definitely state that he was intoxicated. His observations were that he was polite, cooperative, there was a moderate smell of alcohol, and that he mumbled.
The trial court sustained the motion and stated that:
There was no indication of the alcohol content. (There is only evidence showing that) The three beers (were consumed) and the time frame which they were consumed. (Or that) It was a single car accident, and admission of three beers. And the officer said he made the arrest based upon that and that alone. Any other facts were, according to the officer's testimony, perhaps a result of the accident.
The Director claims that probable cause was established and, if the trial court's holding stands, it will allow drivers who have been involved in single vehicle injury accidents to avoid arrest because a driver's behavior can always be explained by his or her injuries.
In reviewing a directed verdict (motion for dismissal) in favor of a party, the court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. The court shall give that party the benefit of all permissible inferences and ignore contrary evidence and inferences, in order to determine whether the non-moving party has made a submissible case. Harder v. Director of Revenue, 969 S.W.2d 340, 341 (Mo.App. 1998). A trial court should grant a directed verdict only if reasonable persons would not differ on the correct disposition of the case. Id.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in granting Rinne's motion for dismissal because the admissible evidence was sufficient to establish probable cause. Specifically, he claims that the trial court erred in sustaining the motion to dismiss because the trooper's observations of Rinne could have been the result of injuries caused by the accident. Thus, an evaluation must be made as to whether the Director has shown probable cause.
In examining the existence of probable cause, courts consider the information possessed by the officer before the arrest and the reasonable inferences...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuessner v. Wooten
...admission, and refusal to take a breath test. By some cases, he had at least arguable probable cause. See Rinne v. Dir. of Revenue , 13 S.W.3d 658, 661 (Mo. App. 2000) (probable cause—admitted to drinking and smelled like alcohol after a one-car accident); McFall v. Dir., Dep't of Revenue ,......
-
Findley v. Director of Revenue
...presence of empty beer cans in his vehicle provided probable cause to arrest him for driving while intoxicated); Rinne v. Director of Revenue, 13 S.W.3d 658, 661 (Mo.App.2000) (driver's involvement in one-car accident, odor of intoxicants on his breath and admissions that he had been drinki......
-
Callendar v. Director of Revenue
...W.D. 1997). The Director of Revenue must establish all of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence. Rinne v. Director of Revenue, 13 S.W.3d 658, 659 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000). "If the trial court determines one or more of these criteria have not been met, it must reinstate driving privi......
-
Cain v. Director of Revenue, 25386.
...to be used to excuse behavior that might otherwise be indicia of intoxication. See Rain, 46 S.W.3d at 588-89; Rinne v. Dir. of Revenue, 13 S.W.3d 658, 661 (Mo.App.2000). In Rain, the Court noted testimony from the arresting officer that in most collisions involving head injuries, the person......