Legal Opinion · Concurrence

West v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided November 17, 2009No. SD 29490Published

1ConcurrenceDaniel E. Scott, Chief Judge

I agree that the trial court misapplied the law. A driver’s lack of understanding not made apparent to the officer “is of no consequence.” Spradling v. Deimeke, 528 S.W.2d 759, 766 (Mo.1975); Laney v. Dir. of Revenue, 144 S.W.3d 350, 354 (Mo.App.2004); Baldridge v. Dir. of Revenue, 82 S.W.3d 212, 222 (Mo.App.2002). As this court has noted:

A driver who has been advised of his rights under the Implied Consent Law, but declines to take the test, is deemed to have refused the test unless he objectively and unequivocally shows he does not understand his rights and the warning concerning the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Spradling v. DeimekeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1975
  2. Duffy v. Director of RevenueMissouri Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. Baldridge v. Director of RevenueMissouri Court of Appeals · 2002
  4. Brown v. Director of RevenueMissouri Court of Appeals · 2005
  5. Cartwright v. Director of RevenueMissouri Court of Appeals · 1991

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API