Author Archives: admin

Audits find problems in MO courts outside St. Louis County

Apparently, St. Louis County is not alone in its controversial municipal court practices. A recent state audit of municipal courts has found problems in counties such as Jasper, Clay and Lincoln.

The recent audits from December and January by Missouri’s state auditor has lent credence to arguments that questionable court practices in a select few St. Louis County municipals could be a state-wide problem. The audits are part of 10 state-wide audits to be conducted.

The audits previously were tailored towards accounting practices but have now been expanded to consider practices that could damage the court’s credibility or treat people unfairly. Statistical data on traffic tickets, warrants and penalties are now collected and evaluated.

Based on the new focus of court audits, five of four municipal courts that have been audited so far received “fair” to “poor” ratings on a four point scale that included “good” and “excellent.”

Problems in these out-state cities involved court clerks with broad and unchecked authority to issue warrants, collect money, and amend charges without much supervision; illegal fees and tickets voided without a prosecutor or judges signature; missing money; lax bookkeeping; and late reports with errors on the court caseloads.

In Joplin, a city of 6,195, received a “poor” grade. The audit said that poor record keeping upped the risk that defendants could get fined even though they spent time in jail or completed community service instead of paying a fine. Restitution and bail payments were not timely processed and 120 people were found to have access to the court’s computer but should not have had it. Access to the information risked that case data could be altered or cases dismissed.

In Carl Junction, population of just under 7,500 in Jasper County,
weaknesses in accounting procedures and controls were noted, along with
$65,373 in missing money.

Their court clerk has since been charged with felony stealing but once had the power to dismiss cases and amend traffic tickets to non-moving
violations. The audit further noted that reports were not filed with the
state; tickets went missing and receipts not filed timely; and one bail
payment went 237 days before it was deposited.

The cities of Foley and Winfield in Lincoln County, along with Mosby in Clay County received a “fair” rating. The City of St. Ann in St. Louis County was judged as “good.”

Critics of recent municipal reform legislation have complained about its unfair and unequal application for St. Louis County compared to other
counties. Audit statistics showing Foley generating 85 percent of its
revenue from the its court system proves their point that St. Louis County should not be the only county singled out for court reform.

The new law places a cap on the amount of money that can be raised from traffic cases, 12.5 percent for St. Louis County municipals and 20 percent for municipals in other counties.

Traffic ticket quotas and revenues argued in MO senate, courts

Two opposing sides in the debate to restrict revenue from municipal tickets were fighting it out in different ways last week.

Some 12 cities appeared before a Cole Count judge last Friday over whether to put a hold on a law that caps the amount of revenue cities can earn from traffic tickets. They argued that the legislation unfairly singles out the St. Louis area thereby violates the state constitution.

Missouri passed the law in response to community unrest in Ferguson over police tactics and municipal court fines. The U.S. Department of Justice has concluded municipal courts were being driven by profit motives to raise money rather than justice. Just this week, the DOJ has said it plans to sue the City of Ferguson for not implementing its suggestions to overhaul its police force and legal system.

The cities contend that an accreditation requirement for their police departments would cost them too much money and the fact that the state has not offered to pay for accreditation is unconstitutional.

The Attorney General’s office has said a police force is not required for cities and that they are allowed to contract the services to other law enforcement agencies.

While attorneys were fighting it out in a Cole County courtroom, just down the road the Missouri Senate voted to stop cities, counties and law
enforcement agencies from setting traffic-ticket quotas.

The Senators voted unanimously on Thursday to make it a crime for a public official to require any police officer to write a fixed number of citations and for supervisors from pressuring subordinates to issue more tickets.

The legislation was sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat from the St. Louis area and now will go to the state House for a vote.

The NTSB wants to lower DWI legal limit to one drink, .05% BAC

The amount of alcohol you may consume before you drive could get even lower if the
National Transportation and Safety Board gets its way.

The NTSB wants to decrease the legal driving limit of blood-alcohol content
to .05 percent or lower, essentially limiting you to one drink or you will risk getting arrested for DWI.

The federal agency published a list of policies it would like to implement
nationally, a so-called “wish list.” In addition to lowering the BAC level
below .08 percent, it wants to outlaw all cell phone use when driving, even
using a hands-free device.

The NTSB argues that research shows most people are impaired once they
reach a BAC of .05 percent. The agency has long advocated that driving
while drinking is dangerous and that drugs other than alcohol can cause
impairment; over-the-counter drugs, prescription drugs, and illegal
drugs.

If adopted, a .05 percent BAC would limit a 100-pound woman to just one
drink. Two drinks would put any woman under 225 pounds close to or over the
proposed new legal limit. A 180-pound male would be limited to
just two drinks before reaching the legal limit.

For reference, one drink is equal to 1.25 ounces of 80 proof liquor, 12
ounces of beer, or 5 ounces of wine.

The NTSB is calling for a cultural change when it comes to cell phone use in
the car, citing that even hands-free devices are a cognitive distraction for
most people.

Each additional task a driver conducts while driving impairs his or her ability
to process from the primary task of driving. That distraction must be
managed, if not eliminated, the NTSB contends.

MO Supreme Court questions use of evidence in DWI cases

A recent Missouri Supreme Court ruling has cast a shadow on DWI cases involving the use of breath analyzers between December 2012 and February 2014. Thousands of cases may be impacted.

The case highlights a 14-month loophole that changed how breath analyzers are calibrated. The machines are expected to be calibrated every 35 days to ensure they are working correctly.

That was not the case for Kristin Stiers. Stiers was suspected of driving while intoxicated and stopped in 2013 by Lake St. Louis Police. The state high court ruled that the machine used by the police was improperly calibrated and the results of Stiers’ breath test be excluded from evidence. The court said her driving privileges should be reinstated.

The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services regulates breath analyzers. However, due to changed wording in their regulations on maintaining the machine, a loophole was created between December 2012 and February 2014. During that period, the regulation wording used the word “and” instead of “or.” This slight word change instantly required police to conduct three calibration tests instead of just one. The machines now needed to be verified and calibrated with a .04, a .08, and a 0.10, and remained that way until February 28, 2014. In Stiers’ case, the machine was calibrated at only one level.

Several thousand people are estimated to have been pulled over for a DWI during this 14-month period. The Supreme Court case is Kristin Nicole Stiers vs. Director of Revenue.

DUI dismissed when woman proves her body brews alcohol

A charge of DUI against a woman in upstate New York was dismissed on grounds that her body brews its own alcohol.

The woman, living in Hamburg, New York, blew a blood alcohol level of more than four times the legal limit but the local judge dismissed her DUI when her attorney presented evidence that she suffered from “auto-brewery syndrome.”

Her attorney began looking into the possibility of an alternative explanation to her elevated BAC levels when upon her release she was not exhibiting any signs of traditional intoxication, although her BAC levels were hitting levels of just under 0.40.

Auto-brewery syndrome, also known as gut-fermentation syndrome, is a rare medical condition that can occur when abnormal amounts of gastrointestinal yeast convert common food carbohydrates into ethanol. This condition is believed to take place in the small bowel, as opposed to the large bowel where a gut fermentation process occurs to help give our bodies energy.

This rare medical condition was first noted in 1912 as “germ carbohydrate fermentation” and later studied as a possible factor of vitamin deficiencies and irritable bowel syndrome.

A 2013 case in Japan, involving inexplicable intoxication, was documented in a 61-year-old man. Upon further study of his condition, he was diagnosed with having an overabundance of a yeast called Saccharomyces Cerevisiae. It is the same yeast used to brew beer.

In the case of the Hamburg, NY, woman, she had been with her husband at a restaurant in 2014 where she consumed four drinks between noon and 6 p.m. So her husband contacted a local pharmacologist who stated that a woman her size having four drinks in that period should have a BAC level between 0.01 and 0.05, much lower than the legal limit of impairment in New York which is 0.08 percent.

The reason the police initially pulled her over was that she had been driving home from the restaurant when her tire blew. Because she was close to home she kept driving instead of pulling over to change it. Another driver saw her driving with the flat and called the police to help her. When the officer pulled her over, he had her blow for a DUI where she registered just under the 0.40 level. Because for most people that level is a life-threatening, she was taken to the hospital.

The woman’s husband hired two physician assistants and a person trained in administering Breathalyzers to observe her and take her BAC levels over a 12-hour-period. The blood samples were processed at the same lab used by the prosecuting attorney’s office. The results showed that without any drinks her blood level at 9:15 a.m. was already double the legal limit, triple the legal limit at 6 p.m. and four times the legal limit at 8:30 p.m., which was around the same time of the day when the police pulled her over. At the same time, she did not experience symptoms until her BAC was between 0.30 and 0.40.

Although the local judge dismissed the charges, the prosecutor’s office is likely to appeal the decision.

MO Auditor finds ‘questionable’ fees in two traffic courts

An audit of two St. Louis-area communities raises questions about their traffic fine processes and how they have run their municipal courts.

A report from the Missouri State Auditor reviewed both St. Ann and Foristell municipals on how they have operated their courts. In Foristell, located in both St. Charles and Warren counties, the auditor was questioning whether a $100 warrant fee for individuals who failed to appear in court or pay their fines was proper. In 2014, the city generated more than $65,000 in warrant fees. The town of 500 residents has since stopped the practice.

In St. Ann, located near Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, the auditor found the police department had collected $38,000 through what was described as a questionable bond processing fee. The city has since stopped accepting cash bonds and, therefore, is no longer charging the fees that were questioned.

The audits are part of a new law that the state legislature and governor approved in the aftermath of protests in Ferguson in 2014 regarding, among many issues, abuses in the municipal court system.

The new legislation limits how much cities can raise from court fines and fees. It further bans failure to appear charges (FTA) for missing court dates, and restricts jail sentences for most minor traffic cases. The new law also requires municipals to file financial reports to the state auditor, with a certification by municipal judges stating that the courts are in compliance with the law. As a penalty for failing to file reports or turn over excess revenue, cities would have to transfer pending court cases to their respective circuit court and lose out on sales tax revenues.

Missouri State Auditor Nicole Galloway, looking at Foristell records, found bookkeeping errors and “other practices that may impair impartiality or damage the court’s credibility with citizens.” Galloway cited that many tickets were processed by the court where plea agreements were signed by the defendants but not the prosecutor. “The court assesses two potentially improper fees related to a person’s failure to appear in court for a traffic violation that may not be authorized by state law,” Galloway noted.

Last November, several cities in St. Louis County sued the state to block the new law on grounds that it was unconstitutional in that it treated their city different from others in the stated.

St. Louis cities sue to block limits on traffic ticket revenue

Twelve St. Louis North County municipals sued the state of Missouri last
week over a new law that limits their revenue from traffic violation fees
and fines.

The law, known as Senate Bill 5 and was passed in response to the civil
unrest after the Michael Brown shooting, goes into effect January 2016. St.
Louis County municipals are prevented from receiving more than 12 ½ percent
of its general operating revenue from traffic cases. By contrast, cities
outside St. Louis County are limited to 20 percent, which was reduced from
30 percent.

The plaintiffs are Cool Valley, Normandy, Glen Echo Park, Bel-Ridge,
Bel-Nor, Northwoods, Pagedale, Velda Village Hills, Uplands Park, Vinita
Park, Wellston and Moline Acres. Attorney David H. Pittinsky, of
Philadelphia, filed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit in Cole County.

The lawsuit argues the Legislature and governor acted unconstitutionally by
treating St. Louis County municipalities differently from other areas of the
state.

The lawsuit argues that the new law violates the state’s Hancock Amendment
because it places a mandate on a city without any way to fund it.
Furthermore, plaintiffs argue the Legislature and the Governor acted
unconstitutionally because St. Louis County is treated differently from
other parts of the state.

Aside from limiting how much revenue can be derived from court fines and
fees, the new law limits fines and bans failure-to-appear charges for
missing a court date, as well as jail sentences for most minor traffic
violations.

The new law forces cities to provide annual financial reports to the state
auditor and a municipal judge to certify the court is following the new
requirements. The penalty for not complying includes losing sales tax
revenue, the transfer of all pending court cases to circuit court, and even
disincorporation.

The law also forces police departments to achieve accreditation and to
develop written policies for use of force and pursuit. The Missouri Supreme
Court is presently in the process of developing rules regarding conflicts of
interest between judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and other court
system personnel.

Drunk cop made to skip MADD event honoring his DWI arrests

A Pinellas County, Florida, deputy was disciplined for drunken misbehavior at a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) conference in Fort Lauderdale.

The deputy, Michael Szelig, was attending a two-day-statewide training program in July and also was there to accept a MADD award for his work making more than 100 DWI arrests. However, he showed up at the event intoxicated.

According to a news report that referenced a 274-page Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office internal affairs investigation, one witness said he arrived staggeringly drunk at the Friday night banquet. This was the same banquet he was to receive his MADD award in front of a crowd of 200 guests.

The news report stated that Gulfport Police Chief Robert Vincent spotted Szeliga outside of the banquet and confronted Szeliga about his intoxication and told him not to attend. Disrespectful comments were made by Szeliga toward Vincent. Vincent found Szeliga’s supervisor who ordered him to his room and to not attend the banquet and not accept the award.

The incident began when Szeliga and the other deputies were on duty when they decided to skip the training and head to the pool. Some deputies went swimming, while Szeliga told investigators he drank Jameson cocktails. When the training was over, Szeliga told investigators he headed back to his room.

Later that evening, he was dressing for the awards banquet when a fire alarm sounded. The news report states that records indicate that a Pasco County sergeant who runs the DUI squad in that county reported seeing Szeliga in the hotel hallway wearing “nothing but boxer shorts.”

The officer stated that Szeliga’s eyes were glassy and his speech was slurred. Szeliga later told investigators he was not standing in the hallway in his boxer shorts and insisted he only stuck his head out of the door due to the fire alarm. Szeliga also denied being as drunk as witnesses claimed.

As punishment, the deputy received one day of paid suspension for violating the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office “Standard of Conduct” and had to write a letter of apology to Vincent.

New Missouri law gets tougher with persons on DWI probation

The State of Missouri has passed a new law that makes it more difficult for Driving While Intoxicated defendants still on probation.

The new law, recently signed by Gov. Jay Nixon, makes it more difficult for people already convicted of a DWI to get their full driving privileges back. People convicted as a first time offender are allowed their license back but must use an ignition interlock device for six months on their vehicle. The device requires a driver to blow through a tube into a machine that measures blood alcohol content.

When a person’s blood alcohol content exceeds .08 or tampers with the interlock device during their six-month period, they must keep using the device for an additional six months, according to current law.

The state`s new law mandates another three months of restricted driving if someone blows over the legal limit of .08 in their last three months on probation. In effect, this means a person must not have any violations in their last three months of probation in order to get their driving privileges reinstated.

Penalties

Penalties for DWI are stiff in Missouri. If arrested and convicted of DWI, a person must face penalties from both the court and the Missouri Department of Revenue. The latter is known as an administrative proceeding. One can possibly see jail time, fines, driver’s license revocations, and mandated completion of alcohol treatment programs.

In Missouri, a DWI is defined as driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or more; 0.04% or more in a commercial vehicle; and 0.02% or more if you are a minor.

Depending on your offense, the arresting officer or judge can charge you with a DWI even if you are driving with a BAC less than the above limits.

Procedures

When you are arrested on suspicion of a DWI, your MO driver’s license will be suspended.

You will have 15 days after receiving your Notice of Suspension/Revocation of Driving Privilege (Form 2385) to contest your driver’s license suspension. You can use the form to either request a hearing or restricted driving privileges.

If the MO DOR administrative suspension decision is upheld, your driver’s license may be suspended for 90 days, if you have no prior DWI offenses. If it is your second conviction, you can be suspended for one year. If you have a second conviction within 5 years, your driver’s license can be denied for up to 5 years. If you refuse a BAC test, your driver’s license can be suspended for 1 year.

For more information, contact us at Pulledover.com. Our lawyers can help you get on top of your DWI, but time is of the essence. Act now.