Reed v. Director of Revenue

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that Nicholas Reed was arrested without a warrant in violation of section 577.039 because he was arrested more than one and one-half hours after the alleged DWI violation and had not left the scene of an accident as defined by the statute. Because the arrest violated the statutory requirements governing chemical testing, the court held that the blood alcohol test results were inadmissible in the driver's-license suspension proceeding. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment reinstating Reed's driving privileges.

Holdings

1. Reed's warrantless arrest was illegal because it occurred more than one and one-half hours after the alleged violation and Reed had not left the scene of an accident within the meaning of section 577.039. An accident under that statute requires personal injury or property damage.
2. The blood-alcohol test results were inadmissible in the civil proceeding because section 577.037 conditions admissibility on compliance with sections 577.020 through 577.041, and Reed's arrest violated section 577.039.
3. The careless-and-imprudent-driving citation did not avoid section 577.039 because Reed was arrested for driving while intoxicated, and both the arrest and admissibility of the blood-alcohol results were governed by section 577.039.
4. Because matters outside the pleadings were presented and not excluded, the circuit court's judgment on the pleadings was treated as a summary judgment and reviewed de novo.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Reed's warrantless arrest more than one and one-half hours after the alleged DWI violation was lawful under section 577.039 because he had left the scene of an accident.
2. Whether the blood-alcohol test results were admissible in the civil proceeding to suspend or revoke Reed's driving privileges when the arrest violated section 577.039.
3. Whether the arrest and test results were nevertheless valid because Reed was also cited for careless and imprudent driving under section 577.020.1(1).
4. Whether the circuit court properly treated Reed's motion for judgment on the pleadings as a motion for summary judgment and reviewed the matter de novo.

Disposition

affirmed