Schranz v. Director of Revenue
| Decision Date | 21 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 703 S.W.2d 912 |
| Parties | Kevin James SCHRANZ, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE State of Missouri, Appellant. 36885. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Robert Davis Aulgur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for appellant.
Allan J. Fanning, Kansas City, for respondent.
Before CLARK, C.J., and TURNAGE and KENNEDY, JJ.
This is an appeal by the Director of Revenue from an order entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County providing for reinstatement of respondent's driving license. The cause was before the circuit court on appeal from a notice of license suspension issued by the Department of Revenue pursuant to §§ 302.500-540, RSMo.Cum.Supp.1984. 1 The order for suspension had been subjected to an administrative hearing as provided in § 302.530 and the de novo trial in the circuit court on petition by respondent. The Director has appealed.
According to a stipulation of facts presented to the trial court, respondent had been driving his automobile westbound on 79th Street in Kansas City on September 27, 1984 when, at the intersection of Troost Avenue, the vehicle crashed into a building on the east side of Troost. When officers arrived at the scene, Schranz was passed out behind the steering wheel of the car. An Alco-Analyzer test of Schranz's breath was administered and the test results showed respondent's blood alcohol content to be .17 of one percent by weight. In physical appearance, respondent's eyes were bloodshot, his pupils were dilated, his balance, walking and turning were swaying and his speech was slurred.
The issue presented to the trial court which formed the basis for its decision was respondent's claim that before procedures resulting in a license suspension under §§ 302.500-540 were initiated by an arrest, the police officer must have had probable cause to believe the arrestee's blood alcohol equalled or exceeded the statutory measure of .13 percent. Although in this case it was obvious that respondent was involved in an intoxication-related traffic offense as provided in § 577.023, it was equally conceded that the police officer could not determine by field observation whether the percentage weight of alcohol in respondent's blood was more or less than .13 percent. The belief that blood alcohol content was of a specific measure could only be formed after performance of scientific tests which, by the nature of the tests, are performed at a police station after the suspect has been taken in custody.
The trial court in its decision applied a literal interpretation of § 302.505.1 and held that probable cause for an arrest leading to a license suspension under § 302.515 may only be supported if, at the moment of arrest, the determination has been made that the arrestee's blood alcohol content is at least .13 of one percent. The fact was conceded to be otherwise here and the suspension was therefore voided.
The trial court judgment in this case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. West, 17353
...administrative driver's license suspension cases, Aron v. Director of Revenue, 737 S.W.2d 718 (Mo. banc 1987); and Schranz v. Director of Revenue, 703 S.W.2d 912 (Mo.App.1986); and on a suppression of evidence case, U.S. v. Carter, 369 F.Supp. 26, 29 (E.D.Mo.1974). Those cases are of no ass......
-
Barish v. Director of Revenue
...noted when the motorist is stopped. Wallace v. Director of Revenue, 754 S.W.2d 900, 902 (Mo.App.1988) (citing Schranz v. Director of Revenue, 703 S.W.2d 912, 913 (Mo.App.1986)). The specific probable cause required to arrest for driving while intoxicated may be developed after a driver is o......
-
Shine v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.
...and unlawful driving, and once stopped, Shine was unable to complete all of the field sobriety tests successfully. Schranz v. Director of Revenue, 703 S.W.2d 912 (Mo.App.1986). In order to establish a prima facie foundation to admit evidence of a breathalyzer test, it must be demonstrated t......
-
Renfro v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo., 20642
...legal limit as required by § 302.505.1. The Director argues that probable cause existed for the arrest, citing Schranz v. Director of Revenue, 703 S.W.2d 912 (Mo.App. W.D.1986). In Schranz, the court said that probable cause to arrest for a violation of § 577.010 or 577.012 exists when the ......