Stanton v. Dir. of Revenue

• Decision Date: 10 November 2020
• Docket Number: WD 83551
• Parties: Johnny B. STANTON, Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

616 S.W.3d 398

Johnny B. STANTON, Appellant,

v.DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent.

WD 83551

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

OPINION FILED: November 10, 2020

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied December 22, 2020

Application for Transfer Denied March 2, 2021

Bruce Brown, Kearney, MO, Counsel for Appellant.

Zachary Thompson, Liberty, MO, Counsel for Respondent.

Before Division One: Thomas N. Chapman, P.J., Mark D. Pfeiffer and W. Douglas Thomson, JJ.

Thomas N. Chapman, Presiding Judge

Johnny Stanton appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Clay County sustaining the Director of Revenue's (Director's) revocation of his driver's license for refusal to submit to a chemical test of his blood. He raises two points on appeal. First, he contends that his refusal was not valid because the deputy who arrested him was not a "law enforcement officer" for purposes of sections 577.041 and 577.020 when he requested Stanton to submit to a chemical test in Clay County, outside his jurisdiction of Clinton County. Second, Stanton contends that the trial court erred in finding there were reasonable grounds to believe that Stanton was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. The judgment is affirmed.

Background¹

On March 23, 2019, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Deputy Tyler Farr of the Clinton County Sheriff's Office received a dispatch about a single-vehicle accident with injuries north of Holt, in Clinton County, Missouri. When the deputy arrived at the scene, he found a 1992 white Chevy Cavalier that appeared to have been traveling north and then had struck a tree on the west side of the road near the driveway entrance to 6961 SE Cannonball Road. Firefighters at the scene informed Deputy Farr that the driver of the vehicle was in an ambulance at the Holt Fire Department.

At the fire department, fire and EMT personnel informed the deputy that Stanton's mother had brought Stanton to the department, telling them that he had been in an accident. They further informed the deputy that Stanton had lacerations on his head, that they were going to transport him to Liberty Hospital to check for possible internal head injuries

, and that they believed he had been drinking because of the smell of intoxicating beverage emitting from his person.

At 3:23 p.m., Deputy Farr contacted Stanton in the back of the ambulance. The deputy could smell a moderate odor of intoxicating beverage coming from him. He asked Stanton what had happened, and Stanton told him that he had been in a vehicle accident. He asked Stanton what caused him to wreck his vehicle, and Stanton told him that he had a sneezing fit causing him to look away from the road and that he hit a spot on the gravel road causing his vehicle to "shoot" off the roadway. The deputy asked how fast he had been traveling, and Stanton stated approximately 30 miles per hour. Deputy Farr then asked Stanton if he had consumed any intoxicating beverages, and Stanton responded that he had had "a couple beers." When the deputy asked him to be more specific, Stanton said "about three beers." The deputy then asked when he had started drinking, and Stanton said "after he got off work, at approximately [3:00 p.m.]" Stanton also told the deputy that he stopped drinking "about four hours ago" and that he had been in the back of the ambulance "for a couple hours." Deputy Farr asked Stanton where he had consumed the alcohol, and Stanton said that he was drinking in his car. Stanton also told the deputy that he has a drinking problem and that he has been trying to get it under control. Finally, Stanton told the deputy that after he wrecked his car, he left the scene on foot and went to his parent's house at 6961 SE Cannonball Road and that they then took him to the Holt Fire Department.

Deputy Farr then performed the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus

on Stanton and observed all six clues of intoxication. The deputy also observed Stanton's eyes to be watery, bloodshot, and glassy. Stanton also showed Vertical Gaze Nystagmus (which Deputy Farr later acknowledged can be caused by brain trauma ).

Due to Stanton's injuries, the deputy did not have Stanton perform any more field sobriety tests. At approximately 3:45 p.m, Stanton was transported to Liberty Hospital in Liberty, Missouri, in Clay County. Deputy Farr returned to the accident scene to finish processing it. He observed beer cans and beer boxes on the ground outside the vehicle. On the inside of the vehicle, he found three beer boxes—one on the front passenger seat and two in the back seat. He saw two crushed cans stuffed between the passenger seat and middle console. In the Alcohol Influence Report, Deputy Farr estimated the time of the crash at 2:59 p.m. based on the "time of the call." For evidence of driving or vehicle operation by subject, the deputy checked the boxes, "Admission of subject," and "Other evidence of recent vehicle operation/crash (hood warm, steam emitting from vehicle(s), debris in the roadway, etc.)," and wrote, "Vehicle still at the scene, wrecked into a tree[,] Debris from vehicle located along the side of the road next to."

Deputy Farr then went to Liberty Hospital and contacted Stanton in the emergency room. The deputy observed that Stanton's eyes were watery, bloodshot, and glassy, his speech was slurred and confused, and his mood was "somewhat agitated." At approximately 4:35 p.m., he read the implied consent warning from the Alcohol Influence Report to Stanton, informing him that he was under arrest, requesting him to submit to a chemical test of his blood, and informing him that if he refused, his license would be revoked for one year and evidence of his refusal may be used against him. Stanton refused to give consent to the test. The deputy issued Stanton a revocation notice for his refusal to submit to the alcohol test. At 4:54 p.m., Stanton requested an attorney, and the deputy stopped all questioning. At approximately 5:02 p.m., Stanton was discharged from the hospital and placed into custody for driving while intoxicated and leaving the scene of an accident. Deputy Farr transported him to the Clinton County Jail.

Stanton filed a petition for review of the revocation. A bench trial was held, and the trial court sustained the revocation of Stanton's driving privilege. It found that Stanton was arrested, that there were reasonable grounds to believe Stanton was driving a motor vehicle in an intoxicated or drugged condition, and that Stanton refused to submit to the test requested by the arresting officer. Stanton appeals.

Standard of Review

Appellate review of a license revocation case is the same as the review of any other court-tried case. Collier v. Dir. of Revenue , 603 S.W.3d 714, 716 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020). The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed on appeal unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Id. The appellate court defers to the trial court's determination of credibility. Id. It accepts as true all evidence and inferences in favor of the prevailing party and disregards contrary evidence. Id.

Analysis

Stanton raises two points on appeal challenging the trial court's judgment upholding the revocation of his driver's license. First, he contends that his refusal was not valid because Deputy Farr was not a "law enforcement officer" for purposes of sections 577.041 and 577.020 when he requested Stanton to submit to a chemical test in Clay County, outside his jurisdiction of Clinton County. Second, Stanton contends that the trial court erred in finding there were reasonable grounds to believe that he was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated condition.

Under Section 577.020.1,² a person operating a vehicle in Missouri is deemed to have impliedly consented to a chemical test to determine blood alcohol content if the person is arrested on probable cause to believe that he or she is driving while intoxicated. State v. Reeter , 582 S.W.3d 913, 916 (Mo. App. W.D. 2019). A person may withdraw the statutory implied consent and refuse testing. Id. ; § 577.041.

Section 302.574.3 provides for the Director's revocation of a person's driver's license for one year for refusal to submit to a chemical test. Section 302.574.4 gives the person the right to file a petition for review to contest the revocation in the circuit court. At the hearing, the court shall determine only:

(1) Whether the person was arrested or stopped;

(2) Whether the officer had:

(a) Reasonable grounds to believe that the person was driving a motor vehicle while in an intoxicated or drugged condition; ... and

(3) Whether the person refused to submit to the test.

§ 302.574.4. "The Director bears the burden to establishing a prima facie case for license revocation by a preponderance of the evidence." Howe v. Dir. of Revenue , 575 S.W.3d 246, 250 (Mo. App. E.D. 2019).

For the circuit court to sustain a license revocation for failure to submit to chemical testing, the Director must show: (1) the driver was arrested; (2) the officer had probable cause to believe the driver was driving while intoxicated; and (3) the driver refused to submit to a test. Id. (citing § 302.574.4). "The Director's failure to prove any one of the three elements requires reinstatement of the driver's license." Id. (citing § 302.574.5).

In his first point on appeal, Stanton contends:

The trial court erred when it entered judgment sustaining the revocation of [Stanton's] license to drive for a refusal to submit to a chemical test of his blood because in light of the uncontested facts, the trial court misinterpreted statutory law, including MO.REV.STAT. § 577.020, which requires that the test shall be administered at the direction of the law enforcement officer whenever the person has been stopped, detained, or arrested for any reason in that Deputy Farr was not a law enforcement officer at the time he requested Stanton to submit to a blood test and in

...