Legal Opinion

Williams v. Director of Revenue

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided February 6, 2009No. SD 28910PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

DON E. BURRELL, Presiding Judge.

This case requires us to determine whether a driver’s request to speak to an attorney after she has been Mirandized1 but before she has been asked to submit to any blood alcohol or drug content testing pursuant to section 577.0202 (“a chemical test”) is sufficient to invoke the twenty-minute time period to attempt to contact an attorney granted by section 577.041.1 (“the twenty-minute rule”). The other two districts of our Court have addressed this question and reached differing conclusions. We join our colleagues in the Eastern District in finding section…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Murphy v. CarronSupreme Court of Missouri · 1976
  3. Hinnah v. Director of RevenueSupreme Court of Missouri · 2002
  4. State v. RoweSupreme Court of Missouri · 2002
  5. Kotar v. Director of RevenueMissouri Court of Appeals · 2005

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Norris v. Director of RevenueSupreme Court of Missouri · 2010
  2. Edwards v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATEMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009
  3. Williams v. Director of RevenueMissouri Court of Appeals · 2009

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

Powered by the Exa API