j oseph s. p assanise 2974 e. battlefield springfield, mo 65804 phone: (417) 882-9300 fax: (417)...

JJoseph oseph SS. . PPassaniseassanise

2974 E. Battlefield Springfield, MO 658042974 E. Battlefield Springfield, MO 65804Phone: (417) 882-9300 Fax: (417) 882-9310Phone: (417) 882-9300 Fax: (417) 882-9310

- w w w . e n t r a p p e d . c o m -- w w w . e n t r a p p e d . c o m -

Getting the Judge to say the word “Sustained” to a Defense Counsel’s Motion: A Tricky Proposition

SMBA CLE: Alcohol Violations: The Basics

Getting the Judge to say the word “Sustained”

When You Handle a DWI Case it’s When You Handle a DWI Case it’s Like Holding up the Bullseye for Like Holding up the Bullseye for

the Firing Squadthe Firing Squad


Movie Clip Link – Drunk Golf GuyMovie Clip Link – Drunk Golf Guy

These are “Our” Clients Before These are “Our” Clients Before They Get in the CarThey Get in the Car


Movie Clip Link – My Cousin VinnyMovie Clip Link – My Cousin Vinny

The Three Biggest Lies

1)The Check is in the mail.1)The Check is in the mail.

2)I will respect you in the morning.2)I will respect you in the morning.

3)I’m from the Government,3)I’m from the Government,and I’m here to help.and I’m here to help.

If you have a DWI Case, then the Government If you have a DWI Case, then the Government needs our client’s help to make the DWI.needs our client’s help to make the DWI.

1)1)Anatomy of a DWI (Case Law)Anatomy of a DWI (Case Law)

General Overview

A.A. The Stop-It Doesn’t Take MuchThe Stop-It Doesn’t Take Much

B.B. Pre-Arrest TestsPre-Arrest Tests

C.C. Post-ArrestPost-Arrest

1.1. Four Categories DiscussedFour Categories Discussed2.2. Some Law to Hang Your Hat OnSome Law to Hang Your Hat On

1.1. Field Sobriety Tests (Case Law)Field Sobriety Tests (Case Law)2.2. Portable Breath Test (Case Law)Portable Breath Test (Case Law)

1.1. Breath Test (Case Law)Breath Test (Case Law)

2)2)MotionsMotionsA. Client CleanupA. Client Cleanup

General Overview

B. Initial MotionsB. Initial MotionsC. Pre-TrialC. Pre-TrialD. TrialD. Trial

3)3)MiscellaneousMiscellaneousA.A. Investigatory SubpoenaInvestigatory SubpoenaB.B. State v. AdamsState v. Adams

C.C. Admissibility of Scientific EvidenceAdmissibility of Scientific EvidenceD.D. Evidence-Admission of NHTSA GuidelinesEvidence-Admission of NHTSA Guidelines

General Overview

4)4)DWI Procedure (Suggestions)DWI Procedure (Suggestions)

A. Blow or Not to BlowA. Blow or Not to Blow

B. Repeat OffendersB. Repeat Offenders

C. QuestionsC. Questions

Anatomy of a DWI: The StopAnatomy of a DWI: The Stop

A. Moving Traffic Violation/Equipment ViolationA. Moving Traffic Violation/Equipment Violation

1. Speeding1. Speeding2. Turn Signal2. Turn Signal

6. Expired Tags6. Expired Tags7. Tail Light Out7. Tail Light Out8. Cracked Windshield8. Cracked Windshield

3. Stop Sign3. Stop Sign 4. Cross Center Line4. Cross Center Line5. License Plate Light Out5. License Plate Light Out

9. Headlight Out9. Headlight Out

1. Four Categories1. Four Categories

2. Reasonable Suspicion/“Unusual Operation”2. Reasonable Suspicion/“Unusual Operation”The “Terry Stop”The “Terry Stop”

B. B. State v. MalaneyState v. Malaney, 871 S.W.2d 634 (S.D. 1994) , 871 S.W.2d 634 (S.D. 1994)

A. A. State v. HuckinState v. Huckin, 847 S.W.2d 951 (S.D. 1993), 847 S.W.2d 951 (S.D. 1993)


1. “In order to make a valid traffic stop, the 1. “In order to make a valid traffic stop, the officer need only have a reasonable suspicionofficer need only have a reasonable suspicion criminal activity is taking place when he makes criminal activity is taking place when he makes the stop.”the stop.”

1. Unusual Operation-Weave Within Lane1. Unusual Operation-Weave Within Lane


3. ‘Good Faith’ Exception?3. ‘Good Faith’ Exception?

A. A. Teat v. Director of RevenueTeat v. Director of Revenue,,806 S.W.2d 754 (W.D. 1991)806 S.W.2d 754 (W.D. 1991)

B. B. People v. HamiltonPeople v. Hamilton,, 102 Cal. App. 4102 Cal. App. 4thth 1311 (2002) 1311 (2002)

1. Plates renewed, but lag in computer 1. Plates renewed, but lag in computer reportingreporting

1. One way street sign ordinance not passed1. One way street sign ordinance not passed

4. The Small Town Excuse for the Stop4. The Small Town Excuse for the Stop

A. A. State v. SpurgeonState v. Spurgeon,,907 S.W.2d 798 (S.D. 1995)907 S.W.2d 798 (S.D. 1995)

1. Pulled Defendant Over Previously1. Pulled Defendant Over Previously



A. Read the Statute/OrdinanceA. Read the Statute/Ordinance

1. RSMO 1. RSMO §§301.020-single lane301.020-single lane

II. Some Law to Hang Your Hat OnII. Some Law to Hang Your Hat On

a. 4 Lane Road/Cross Over Center Lane?a. 4 Lane Road/Cross Over Center Lane?

B. Case Law (Examples)B. Case Law (Examples)State v. AbelnState v. Abeln,,

136 S.W.3d 803 (W.D. 2004), fog lane case136 S.W.3d 803 (W.D. 2004), fog lane caseState v. MendozaState v. Mendoza,,

75 S.W.3d 842 (S.D. 2002), move over 75 S.W.3d 842 (S.D. 2002), move over lawlawState v. JohnsonState v. Johnson,, 148 148 S.W.3d 338 (W.D. 2004), defendant S.W.3d 338 (W.D. 2004), defendant dropped dropped off a person and entered flow of off a person and entered flow of traffic traffic without turn signalwithout turn signal

II. Some Law to Hang Your Hat On (Cont.)II. Some Law to Hang Your Hat On (Cont.)


No HunchesNo Hunches

aa. State v. Schmutz. State v. Schmutz,,100 S.W.3d 876 (S.D. 2003)100 S.W.3d 876 (S.D. 2003)



B. Case Law (Examples)-Cont.B. Case Law (Examples)-Cont.

11. . Shopping center lane at nightShopping center lane at night

C. Sufficiency of the Evidence ArgumentC. Sufficiency of the Evidence Argument



aa. . Uncorroborated, Observational Uncorroborated, Observational Testimony by OfficerTestimony by Officer

11. . No Video TapeNo Video Tape

22. . No Proof of Underlying Charge No Proof of Underlying Charge (Speeding)(Speeding)

Anatomy of a DWI: Pre-ArrestAnatomy of a DWI: Pre-Arrest

I. Field Sobriety TestsI. Field Sobriety Tests

A. HGNA. HGN

B. Walk Straight LineB. Walk Straight Line

C. Stand on One FootC. Stand on One Foot

D. Portable Breath TestD. Portable Breath Test

DEVELOP THE FACTSDEVELOP THE FACTS


1. 1. State v. RoseState v. Rose,,86 S.W.3d 90 (W.D. 2002)86 S.W.3d 90 (W.D. 2002)

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

I. Field Sobriety TestsI. Field Sobriety Tests

a. Does a. Does NotNot Equate to BAC # Equate to BAC #

a. “Court can disregard evidence of a. “Court can disregard evidence of improper FST’s when making PC improper FST’s when making PC decision.”decision.”


1. 1. State v. StottlemyreState v. Stottlemyre, , 35 S.W.3d 854 (W.D. 2001)35 S.W.3d 854 (W.D. 2001)

2. 2. State v. DuncanState v. Duncan, , 27 S.W.3d 486 (E.D. 2000)27 S.W.3d 486 (E.D. 2000)

II. Portable Breath TestsII. Portable Breath Tests

RSMO RSMO §§577.020577.020

a. DOR requirements do not apply specificallya. DOR requirements do not apply specifically

RSMO RSMO §§577.026577.026


3. 3. Paty v. Director of RevenuePaty v. Director of Revenue,,168 S.W.3d 625 (E.D. 2003)168 S.W.3d 625 (E.D. 2003)

4. 4. York v. Director of RevenueYork v. Director of Revenue, , 186 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. S. Ct. 2006)186 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. S. Ct. 2006)

II. Portable Breath Tests (Cont.)II. Portable Breath Tests (Cont.)

a. Lack of Traininga. Lack of Training

a. DOR requirements do not apply specificallya. DOR requirements do not apply specifically

b. No evidence of calibrationb. No evidence of calibration

b. No 20 minutesb. No 20 minutes


1. Bloodshot Eyes1. Bloodshot Eyes

2.2. Watery/Glassy EyesWatery/Glassy Eyes

3. Strong Odor of Alcohol on Breath3. Strong Odor of Alcohol on Breath

4. Admits to Drinking4. Admits to Drinking

The Mere Fact that an Individual Exhibited:The Mere Fact that an Individual Exhibited:

DOES NOT REQUIRE A FINDING OF P/CDOES NOT REQUIRE A FINDING OF P/C

York-ArgueYork-Argue

Anatomy of a DWI: Post-ArrestAnatomy of a DWI: Post-Arrest

1. 1. Coyle v. Director of RevenueCoyle v. Director of Revenue ,, 181 181 S.W.3d 62 (S. Ct. 2005)S.W.3d 62 (S. Ct. 2005)

2.2. Bhakta v. Director of RevenueBhakta v. Director of Revenue,,182 S.W.3d 662 (E.D. 2006)182 S.W.3d 662 (E.D. 2006)

I. Breath Test (Case Law)I. Breath Test (Case Law)

a. Did Not Object to 15 min. Burden a. Did Not Object to 15 min. Burden shifts to driver to overcome prima shifts to driver to overcome prima facie casefacie case

Anatomy of a DWI: Post-ArrestAnatomy of a DWI: Post-Arrest

3. 3. Martin v. Director of RevenueMartin v. Director of Revenue,,142 S.W.3d 851 (S.D. 2006)142 S.W.3d 851 (S.D. 2006)

4. 4. Vanderpool v. Director of RevenueVanderpool v. Director of Revenue , , (2006 WL 1792597) (W.D. 2006)(2006 WL 1792597) (W.D. 2006)

I. Breath Test (Case Law)-Cont.I. Breath Test (Case Law)-Cont.

a. Object to 15 min.a. Object to 15 min.

b. Burden stays with Directorb. Burden stays with Director

MotionsMotions

I. I. Client Clean UpClient Clean Up

II. II. Initial MotionsInitial Motions

III. III. Pre-TrialPre-Trial

IV. IV. TrialTrial

Some Ideas and SuggestionsSome Ideas and Suggestions

I. Client Clean UpI. Client Clean Up

A. Application to Expunge DWIA. Application to Expunge DWI

B. Judgment for Expungement B. Judgment for Expungement of DWIof DWI

C. Application to Expunge MIPC. Application to Expunge MIP

MotionsMotions

D. Judgment for Expungement D. Judgment for Expungement of MIPof MIP

E. 12CSR Letter to remove old tickets E. 12CSR Letter to remove old tickets

1. Defines Alcohol Contact1. Defines Alcohol Contacta. Fowler, 823 S.W.2d 134 (E.D. 1992)a. Fowler, 823 S.W.2d 134 (E.D. 1992)b. Russell, 83 S.W.3d 72 (W.D. 2002)b. Russell, 83 S.W.3d 72 (W.D. 2002)

II. Initial MotionsII. Initial Motions

1. Entry of Appearance/Bill of Particulars1. Entry of Appearance/Bill of Particulars

2. Motion for Disclosure of Impeaching 2. Motion for Disclosure of Impeaching InformationInformation

3. Motion for Discovery-DWI (General)3. Motion for Discovery-DWI (General)

MotionsMotions

4. Defendant’s Request for Disclosure by 4. Defendant’s Request for Disclosure by Court OrderCourt Order

III. Pre-Trial MotionsIII. Pre-Trial Motions

5. Motion for Specific Discovery of 5. Motion for Specific Discovery of Officer’s Training ManuelOfficer’s Training Manuel

6. Motion for Specific Discovery of Breath 6. Motion for Specific Discovery of Breath Machine Maintenance RecordsMachine Maintenance Records

7. Motion for Specific Discovery of 7. Motion for Specific Discovery of Portable Breath Test DevicePortable Breath Test Device

8. Motion for Specific Discovery of 8. Motion for Specific Discovery of Criminalist’s RecordsCriminalist’s Records

9. Motion to Suppress (General)9. Motion to Suppress (General)

MotionsMotions

MotionsMotions

III. Pre-Trial Motions (Cont.)III. Pre-Trial Motions (Cont.)10. Motion to Suppress Chemical Test10. Motion to Suppress Chemical Test11. Motion in Limine (DRE)11. Motion in Limine (DRE)12. Motion to Suppress Opinion Testimony 12. Motion to Suppress Opinion Testimony of of

Officer Regarding IntoxicationOfficer Regarding Intoxication13. Motion to Suppress Opinion Testimony of 13. Motion to Suppress Opinion Testimony of

Officer Regarding the Issue of IntoxicationOfficer Regarding the Issue of Intoxication14. Defendant’s Motion to Suppress and/or Motion 14. Defendant’s Motion to Suppress and/or Motion

in Limine to Exclude Blood Test Results in Limine to Exclude Blood Test Results from Evidence During Trial and from Evidence During Trial and Memorandum of Law in Support of MotionMemorandum of Law in Support of Motion

a. SWAB used Isopropanola. SWAB used Isopropanol

MotionsMotions

III. Pre-Trial Motions (Cont.)III. Pre-Trial Motions (Cont.)15. Defendant’s Motion to Redact 15. Defendant’s Motion to Redact

Objectionable Portions of Objectionable Portions of Video/Audio Video/Audio Tape Evidence and Tape Evidence and Defendant’s Motion Defendant’s Motion in Liminein Limine

16. Motion to Suppress Investigative 16. Motion to Suppress Investigative Materials Obtained by Use of an Materials Obtained by Use of an Investigative SubpoenaInvestigative Subpoena

17. Motion for Admission of Polygraph 17. Motion for Admission of Polygraph Procedure and Test ResultsProcedure and Test Results

MotionsMotions

III. Pre-Trial Motions (Cont.)III. Pre-Trial Motions (Cont.)18. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to 18. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to

Preclude Admission of Preclude Admission of Evidence at Evidence at Trial Correlating Trial Correlating Defendant’s Defendant’s Performance on Performance on Standardized Field Standardized Field Sobriety Tests with Sobriety Tests with a Specific Blood a Specific Blood Alcohol ContentAlcohol Content

19. Preclude Admission of Evidence at 19. Preclude Admission of Evidence at Trial Relating to the Portable Trial Relating to the Portable

Breath Breath TestTest

20. Motion In Limine to Preclude Admission of 20. Motion In Limine to Preclude Admission of Evidence at Trial of Defendant’s Alleged Evidence at Trial of Defendant’s Alleged Refusal to Submit to Field Sobriety Refusal to Submit to Field Sobriety TestingTesting

III. Pre-Trial Motions (Cont.)III. Pre-Trial Motions (Cont.)

21. Defendant’s Response to State’s 21. Defendant’s Response to State’s Request Request for for DiscoveryDiscovery

MotionsMotions

a. a. State v. SchneiderState v. Schneider, 736 S.W.2d 392, 736 S.W.2d 392Adverse InferenceAdverse Inference

b. Video or Lack There Ofb. Video or Lack There Of

c. Move Defendant out of Purview of Camerac. Move Defendant out of Purview of Camera

d. CAIN, 130 S.W.3d 1 (S.D. 2003)d. CAIN, 130 S.W.3d 1 (S.D. 2003)

IV. Trial MotionsIV. Trial Motions

22. Defendant’s Objection to Admission of 22. Defendant’s Objection to Admission of Breath Test ResultsBreath Test Results

23. Objection to Criminalist’s Test Results23. Objection to Criminalist’s Test Results

25. Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at 25. Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the Close of All Evidencethe Close of All Evidence

MotionsMotions

24. Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at 24. Motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the Close of State’s Evidencethe Close of State’s Evidence

MiscellaneousMiscellaneous

1. Investigatory Subpoenas1. Investigatory Subpoenas

A. RSMO A. RSMO §§56.085, Medical 56.085, Medical RecordsRecords

B. Example of Greene CountyB. Example of Greene County(Blue Subpoena)(Blue Subpoena)

C. Write Hospital or DoctorC. Write Hospital or Doctor

RSMO RSMO §§56.08556.085In the course of a criminal investigation, the prosecuting In the course of a criminal investigation, the prosecuting or circuit attorney may request the circuit or associate or circuit attorney may request the circuit or associate circuit judge to circuit judge to issue a subpoena to any witness who may issue a subpoena to any witness who may have information for the purpose of oralhave information for the purpose of oral examination examination under oath to require the production of books, papers, under oath to require the production of books, papers, records, or other material of records, or other material of any evidentiary nature at the any evidentiary nature at the office of the prosecuting or circuit attorney requesting office of the prosecuting or circuit attorney requesting the subpoenathe subpoena

Miscellaneous (Cont.)Miscellaneous (Cont.)

SubpoenaSubpoena


2. 2. State v. AdamsState v. Adams, , (sufficiency of evidence)(sufficiency of evidence)163 S.W.3d 35 (S.D. 2005)163 S.W.3d 35 (S.D. 2005)A. .061A. .061B. AccidentB. AccidentC. Odor-ModerateC. Odor-ModerateD. Glassy-BloodshotD. Glassy-BloodshotE. IntoxicatedE. IntoxicatedF. FST’s/PBTF. FST’s/PBTG. “Any intoxication that in any manner impairs G. “Any intoxication that in any manner impairs

the ability of a person to operate an auto is the ability of a person to operate an auto is sufficient to sustain a conviction.”sufficient to sustain a conviction.”State v. WilsonState v. Wilson, 846 S.W.2d 796 (S.W. 1993), 846 S.W.2d 796 (S.W. 1993)


3. Admissibility of Scientific Evidence3. Admissibility of Scientific EvidenceA. CriminalA. Criminal

B. CivilB. Civil

Frye v. United StatesFrye v. United States,,293 F 1013 (DC 1923)293 F 1013 (DC 1923)

State Board of Registration for Healing State Board of Registration for Healing Arts v. McDonaghArts v. McDonagh,,

123 S.W.3d 146 (MO S. Ct. 2003)123 S.W.3d 146 (MO S. Ct. 2003)

RSMO RSMO §490.065 Admissibility of Scientific Evidence§490.065 Admissibility of Scientific Evidence

490.065. 1 490.065. 1 “1. In any civil action, if scientific, technical or “1. In any civil action, if scientific, technical or

other other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in understand the evidence or to determine a fact in

issue, issue, a witnessa witness qualified as an expert by qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, knowledge, skill, experience, training, or experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.opinion or otherwise.”” Id. Id.


490.065. 3 490.065. 3 “3. The facts or data in a particular case upon “3. The facts or data in a particular case upon

which which an expert bases an opinion or inference an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those may be those perceived by or made known to him perceived by or made known to him at or before the at or before the hearing and hearing and must be of a type must be of a type reasonable relied upon reasonable relied upon by experts in the field in forming by experts in the field in forming opinions oropinions or inferences upon the subject and must be inferences upon the subject and must be otherwise otherwise reasonably reliablereasonably reliable.”.” Id. Id.



A. A. Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp.,Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp.,996 S.W.2d 47 (MO S. Ct. 1999)996 S.W.2d 47 (MO S. Ct. 1999)

1. Establish Officer Trained under NHTSA1. Establish Officer Trained under NHTSA

2. Since 1984, Dept. of Public Safety2. Since 1984, Dept. of Public Safety

3. Certified Copy3. Certified Copy

4. RSMO 4. RSMO §§490.220 – U.S. Gov. Records 490.220 – U.S. Gov. Records ExceptionException

4. Admission of NHTSA Guidelines4. Admission of NHTSA Guidelines


B. Trade Journal ExceptionB. Trade Journal Exception

1. 1. Stuart v. Director of RevenueStuart v. Director of Revenue, , 761 S.W.2d 234 (S.D. 1988)761 S.W.2d 234 (S.D. 1988)

2. PBT Manuel/NHTSA Manual2. PBT Manuel/NHTSA Manual

A. Blow or Not to BlowA. Blow or Not to Blow

B. Repeat OffendersB. Repeat Offenders

C. QuestionsC. Questions

D. SourcesD. Sources

1. Carl Ward/Jeff Eastman/Bob Childress1. Carl Ward/Jeff Eastman/Bob Childress

2. Gene Gietzen2. Gene Gietzen

DWI ProcedureDWI Procedure


Movie Clip Link – Liar LiarMovie Clip Link – Liar Liar

Still Frustrated?Still Frustrated? Here’s Some Advice For Your ClientsHere’s Some Advice For Your Clients

Thank You

JJoseph oseph SS. . PPassaniseassanise

2974 E. Battlefield Springfield, MO 658042974 E. Battlefield Springfield, MO 65804Phone: (417) 882-9300 Fax: (417) 882-9310Phone: (417) 882-9300 Fax: (417) 882-9310

- W W W . E N T R A P P E D . C O M -- W W W . E N T R A P P E D . C O M -

SMBA CLE: Alcohol Violations: The Basics

j oseph s. p assanise 2974 e. battlefield springfield, mo 65804 phone: (417) 882-9300 fax: (417)...

Documents