Attorney Carl Matthew Ward's Legal Cases

DUI and DWI

City v. T.C.

Aug 17, 2010

OUTCOME: Refual revocation set aside; DWI charge dismissed

T.C. was on the way to work and suddenly experienced a blinding migrane attack. At 12:30 in the afternoon, a citizen reported to the police that he had observed T.C.'s vehicle parked in a grocery stor ... e parking lot with the driver slumped over the steering wheel. When an officer arrived, the officer observed that the keys were in the ignition, but the engine was not running. According to the officer, T.C. subsequently failed the field sobriety tests and was arrested for DWI. At the station, T.C. then refused to submit to a breath test. Mr. Ward filed an appeal challenging the revocation of T.C.'s driver's license for refusing to take the breath test. One of the elements of the Director of Revenue's case in a refusal trial is to establish that there was probable cause to arrest for DWI. The issue of probable cause is determined from the vantage point of a prudent, cautious, trained police officer. Mr. Ward successfully argued that probable cause was lacking because the investigative officer failed to take any steps at all to determine how long T.C.'s vehicle had been in the parking lot or what T.C.'s condition was at the time of driving. Among other things, the officer failed to question T.C. as to how long T.C. had been in the parking lot before arresting T.C. for DWI, and never bothered to ask if T.C. was ill. The officer also failed to check the hood of the vehicle to determine if the engine compartment was warm. Furthermore, although the officer had the name and number of the citizen who had reported T.C. slumped over the wheel, he did not contact the caller to check to see if he had any idea how long T.C. had been there. Mr. Ward also argued that he believed that his client was ill, not intoxicated, but that even if T.C. had been drinking, the law did not prohibit a motorist from sleeping in a vehicle while intoxicated and that the law should encourage motorists to pull over and stop. The court agreed, and set aside the one year revocation of T.C.'s driver's license. Mr. Ward then appeared in the municipal court where T.C. had been charged with DWI. After learning of what had occurred, the prosecuting attorney dismissed the case.

DUI and DWI

State v. L.G.

Apr 23, 2010

OUTCOME: Motion to Suppress Granted. All evidence arising out of the illegal stop was suppressed. The case was then dismissed by the prosecutor.

The Defendant, L.G., was charged with DWI in State court. Mr. Ward filed a motion to suppress the evidence to challenge the lawfulness of the traffic stop. After a hearing, the court found that a D ... eputy Sheriff's testimony that he had observed the defendant's vehicle cross the centerline was not believable. Mr. Ward had hired an investigator to measure the distance separating his client's vehicle and the Deputy's patrol car when the Deputy's video camera was finally activated, and to determine whether or not L.G.'s license plate was visible at night from at least 50 feet (required) even though the license plate light was out. The investigator (a former police officer in that community) testified that the two vehicles were separated by more than 700 feet when the camera was activated, thereby calling into question the Deputy's ability to have even observed the alleged violation. The investigator also testified that the license plate light was visible from 75 feet, and was therefore in compliance with Missouri law. In addition, after an administrative hearing wherein Mr. Ward subpoeneaed the Deputy to testify, the hearing officer for the Missouri Department of Revenue rescinded L.G.'s administrative suspension for lack of probable cause to arrest.

DUI and DWI

S. v. Director of Revenue, 195 S.W.3d 452 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006)

Jun 27, 2006

OUTCOME: Won

Mr. S. was pulled over and stopped for speeding. During cross-examination, Mr. Ward established the officer had not administered the HGN test correctly. He then offered a video tape which he had su ... bpoenaed that showed that contrary to the officer's testimony, Mr. S.'s balance was normal, and that he had performed the walk and turn and one leg stand tests adequately. The officer also had claimed that Mr. S. refused the PBT, which can generally be used as probable case evidence, the inference being that the person didn't blow for fear of blowing over the limit and being arrested. However, the video tape showed that the officer affirmatively told Mr. S. that the test was voluntary and that he did not have to take it if he didn't want him to. Mr. Ward successfully argued that no adverse inference should be drawn from Mr. S.'s decision not to take the test. He told the judge that everyone hates tests, and when given the opportunity not to take one, they won't, whether or not they had been drinking or not. The trial court agreed and ordered the Director of Revenue to remove the suspension from Mr. S.'s driving record. The trial court's opinion was upheld on appeal.

DUI and DWI

R.Y. v. Director of Revenue, 186 S.W.3d 267, 272 (Mo. banc 2006)

Apr 21, 2006

OUTCOME: Won

In this case, the only evidence which could arguably support the trooper's decision to arrest R.Y. was the result of a portable breath test which was administered only 3 minutes after R.Y. was stopped ... at a DUI checkpoint. The trial judge had found that all of the other field sobriety tests had been improperly administered and excluded them from consideration. The Director was also unable to establish that R.Y. had any problems with his balance or speech prior to arrest. The trooper admitted that she was required to observe R.Y. for 15-20 minutes before administering the PBT test, that she did not do so, and that she should not have relied upon the results of the PBT when making a probable cause determination. The trial court refused to admit the PBT test into evidence under the circumstances of this case and ruled in favor of the driver. The Southern District Court of Appeals determined that in the absence of the PBT, there wasn't probable cause to arrest the petitioner. However, because a Missouri statute provided for the admission of PBT evidence for probable cause determinations, the decision of the trial court was reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial. Mr. Ward then filed a motion for transfer with the Supreme Court of Missouri, which was granted. The Missouri Supreme Court disagreed with the Southern District Court of Appeals, and affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of R.Y. The Supreme Court determined that even though a statute makes the PBT result admissible for probable cause purposes, it is up to the trial court to determine what weight to give to the evidence. Here, the trial court made an alternative finding to the effect that even if the PBT result had been admitted, it would have given the Trooper's testimony no weight because of improper maintenance, training and use of the device by the Trooper. As a result, the Supreme Court determined that the trial court's ruling on the admissibility of the PBT was not prejudicial and was harmless. The Supreme Court also determined that even though there was uncontroverted evidence that R.Y. had bloodshot, watery, glassy eyes, the smell of alcohol on his breath, and admitted to drinking one or two beers, the trial judge was still free to conclude from these facts that probable cause to arrest R.Y. was lacking.

DUI and DWI

M.S. v. Director of Revenue, 179 S.W.3d 470 (Mo. App. 2005)

Dec 20, 2005

OUTCOME: Won

In this case, the officer arrived at the scene of a one vehicle accident. She encountered an unoccupied vehicle parked on the street with heavy front-end damage. The officer checked the registration, d ... etermined who owned the vehicle, and proceeded to that address. The officer arrived at the driver's home over a half hour later. The officer testified that she smelled alcohol when speaking with the driver, but she did not know when the driver had consumed the alcoholic beverages and did not ask. The officer administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, but the officer admitted that she failed to administer the test properly. The officer did not administer any other field sobriety tests. She ultimately conceded that a properly trained, prudent police officer would not have relied on an improperly administered field sobriety test as probable cause for arrest. The trial court ruled in M.S.'s favor, finding that probable cause to believe M.S. was driving while intoxicated was lacking. The Court of Appeals noted that while the officer did not need to observe the driver actually driving to establish probable cause, there had to be circumstantial evidence which rose to the level of probable cause to believe the driver was driving while intoxicated in order to arrest her. The court decided that there was insufficient circumstantial evidence. The mere fact that a person has consumed alcoholic beverages at some undetermined point in time cannot give rise to probable cause that the person is intoxicated. The decision of the trial court setting aside M.S.'s suspension was affirmed.

DUI and DWI

Richardson v. Dir. of Revenue, 165 S.W.3d 236 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005)

Jun 27, 2005

OUTCOME: Won

The facts in this case were very similar to the facts in Reece. This time, the Southern District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision setting aside the revocation of Richardson's drivin ... g privileges for allegedly refusing a breath test based upon the contradictory nature of the arrest report.

DUI and DWI

Paty v. Director of Revenue, 168 S.W.3d 625 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005)

May 31, 2005

OUTCOME: Won

For the first time since the Brown decision, the Eastern District Court of Appeals recognized that a trial court may disregard the testimony of a police officer concerning the results of improperly ad ... ministered field sobriety tests when making a probable cause determination. The Court determined that this rule also applied to an improperly administered portable breath test ("PBT"). Here, the trial court found that the trooper who administered the portable breath test to Paty did not properly administer the test. He did not observe Paty for 15-20 minutes as recommended by the manufacturer, and had no formal training to operate the device. Mr. Ward also presented evidence that the PBT device used to check Mr. Paty's breath had not been checked for calibration since it had been purchased. The Eastern District Court of Appeals held that because the reliability of field sobriety tests is a factual issue, an appellate court must give deference to the determinations made by the trial court. The trial court's decision setting aside Paty's license revocation was upheld by the Court of Appeals.

DUI and DWI

Brown v. Director of Revenue, 85 S.W. 3d 1 (Mo. 2002)

Sep 24, 2002

OUTCOME: Lost the Battle, Won the War

The Supreme Court of Missouri held for the first time that the trial judge may disregard the testimony of a police officer concerning the results of improperly administered field sobriety tests when de ... ciding whether or not the office had probable cause to arrest an individual for DWI. While the court ultimately determined that the remaining indicia of intoxication were sufficient to establish probable cause for the arrest, this case became the foundation for the development of field sobriety testing law as it relates to the reasonableness of an officer's decision to arrest. Attorneys around the State have been able to win countless cases as a result of this decision.

DUI and DWI

Russell v. Dir. of Revenue, 83 S.W.3d 72 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002)

Aug 27, 2002

OUTCOME: Won

Mr. Russell had an old BAC conviction on his driving record. More than 10 years after his conviction, Russell was again arrested, allegedly blew over .080, and was charged with driving while intoxicate ... d. Mr. Ward then requested a hearing for Mr. Russell, and the Department of Revenue hearing officer determined that there wasn't probable cause to arrest Russell on the new charge and removed the administrative suspension from his drivers license. Russell then filed a Petition for Expungement. Under the expungement statute, Russell was entitled to an expungement so long as he could prove that he hadn't received any alcohol related suspensions, revocations or convictions within ten years prior to the filing of the Petition for Expungement. The DWI charge had not gone to trial at the time of filing. The trial court ruled against Mr. Ward's client. Mr. Ward had filed for the expungement because if the prior BAC conviction was expunged, Mr. Russell could testify at the upcoming criminal trial and the prosecuting attorney would not be able to use it to impeach his testimony. The Western District Court of Appeals determined that the trial judge erred when it denied Russell's Petition for Expungement. The Court found that Russell had not been convicted of any alcohol-related driving offense prior to applying for expungement, and the administrative suspension in the most recent case had been rescinded and removed from his driving record and could not be used to disqualify Mr. Russell from obtaining an expungement. Note on Expungements If you plead guilty to or were convicted of a DWI or BAC and it has been more than 10 years since that time, you may be eligible for an expungement if: (1) it was your first plea or conviction for DWI or BAC; (2) you did not get the DWI or BAC while driving a commercial motor vehicle; (3) you do not have a CDL license; and (4) you have not previously obtained an expungement. The expungement petition must always be filed in the court where the conviction occurred. In most cases, you and your attorney will have to appear in court and you will have to testify to establish that you are eligible for the expungement. In some cases, the court may accept your affidavit if there is no objection from the other side. The attorney's fee for obtaining an expungement ranges from between $500.00 to $750.00, plus the Court's filing fee. Had Mr. Russell obtained an expungement prior to his second DWI arrest, he would not have had to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals to get his BAC conviction expunged. Since the Russell case was decided, the legislature has also taken away the 10 year look back period for DWI pleas and convictions, and regardless of time passage, it can be used to enhance punishment for future persistent, aggravated and chronic felony DWI cases. It is certainly worth the time and money to get a DWI or BAC conviction removed from your record. Had Mr. Ward not prevailed at Mr. Russell's administrative hearing, the expungement would have not occurred. Act now before it is too late!

DUI and DWI

Reece v. Dir. of Revenue, 61 S.W.3d 288 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001)

Oct 16, 2001

OUTCOME: Won

Reece was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. He allegedly refused to submit to a breath test. Reece filed a petition for review with the Circuit Court. The police officer did not appe ... ar at trial and the Director of Revenue offered Reece's arrest report into evidence to try to meet the Director's burden of proof. The arresting officer had written in his report in more than one place that Reece refused the breath test. However, he had also completed the breath test checklist and breath test certification sections of the arrest report. The checklist, which was completed by the arresting officer, provided that: "1. Subject observed for at least 15 minutes by Officer Jones. No smoking or oral intake of any material during this time; if vomiting occurs, start over with the 15 minute observation period. 2. Assure that power switch is ON and then press the START TEST button. 3. Enter the test record card. 4. Enter subject and officer information. 5. When display reads PLEASE BLOW, insert mouthpiece and take the subject's breath sample. 6. When test record is printed remove test record and attach printout to this report." The officer never attached a breath test ticket to his report. The certification section provided that: "AS SET FORTH IN THE RULES PROMULGATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RELATED TO THE DETERMINATION OF BLOOD ALCOHOL BY BREATH ANALYSIS, I CERTIFY BY COMPLETING THE BELOW THAT: 1. There was no deviation from the procedure approved by the department. 2. To the best of my knowledge the instrument was functioning properly. 3. I am authorized to operate the instrument. 4. No radio transmission occurred inside the room where and when this test was being conducted." Mr. Ward argued, and the trial court found, that because the officer completed the checklist and certification section, indicating that a test had been given, there was a conflict in the records as to whether or not Reece refused the breath test. The trial court ruled in Reece's favor and Director appealed. The Eastern District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, noting that "this case demonstrates the difficulties that can arise when the case is submitted on the records and the evidence conflicts. Caution should be exercised when a suspension case is submitted on the records alone ... submission of a case on the records alone may pose some risks--including the inability to explain discrepancies or to rehabilitate witnesses."

Carl Matthew Ward's Legal Cases (12)

City v. T.C.

State v. L.G.

S. v. Director of Revenue, 195 S.W.3d 452 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006)

R.Y. v. Director of Revenue, 186 S.W.3d 267, 272 (Mo. banc 2006)

M.S. v. Director of Revenue, 179 S.W.3d 470 (Mo. App. 2005)

Richardson v. Dir. of Revenue, 165 S.W.3d 236 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005)

Paty v. Director of Revenue, 168 S.W.3d 625 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005)

Brown v. Director of Revenue, 85 S.W. 3d 1 (Mo. 2002)

Russell v. Dir. of Revenue, 83 S.W.3d 72 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002)

Reece v. Dir. of Revenue, 61 S.W.3d 288 (Mo. App. E.D. 2001)