field sobriety test in Missouri

2025See Edmisten v. Dir. of Revenue, 92 S.W.3d 270, 274 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (citing Driver’s denial of driving erratically as evidence of intoxication); McCarthy v. Dir. of Revenue, 120 S.W.3d 760, 763 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (citing a driver’s unresponsive answers to the officer’s questions as evidence of intoxication). 8 Swisher engaged in arrogant and combative behavior that culminated in an extended rant that incorrectly argued with Officer about his purported mistakes in administering a field sobriety test.

2025See Turner v. Dir. of Revenue, 609 S.W.3d 492 , 498 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (“Though field sobriety tests are not required, the refusal to take field sobriety tests constitutes evidence of intoxication in administrative license proceedings.”); Flaiz v. Dir. of Revenue, 182 S.W.3d 244, 251 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (“[T]he respondent refused to submit to any field sobriety tests, which can also be used as evidence for a reasonable belief of intoxication.”); Hockman v. Dir. of Revenue, 103 S.W.3d 382, 385 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (“The refusal to take a field sobriety test is also 9 evidence of intoxication

2006See, e.g., Walker v. Director of Revenue, 137 S.W.3d 444, 446 (Mo. banc 2004) (probable cause existed because the driver was swerving, his movements were slow, he smelled of alcohol, had glassy eyes, admitted drinking two beers and failed a field sobriety test); Brown v. Director of Revenue, 85 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Mo. banc 2002) (probable cause existed because the driver made an illegal turn, did not immediately pull over when the officer pursued, had bloodshot eyes, put his foot down during a field sobriety test and smelled strongly of alcohol); Soest v. Director of Revenue, 62 S.W.3d 619, 621 (Mo.A

2002See, e.g., Soest, 62 S.W.3d at 621 ; Hawkins v. Director of Revenue, 7 S.W.3d 549, 551 (Mo.App.1999); Chancellor v. Lohman, 984 S.W.2d 857, 858 (Mo.App.1998).

2006See, e.g., Walker v. Director of Revenue, 137 S.W.3d 444, 446 (Mo. banc 2004) (probable cause existed because the driver was swerving, his movements were slow, he smelled of alcohol, had glassy eyes, admitted drinking two beers and failed a field sobriety test); Brown v. Director of Revenue, 85 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Mo. banc 2002) (probable cause existed because the driver made an illegal turn, did not immediately pull over when the officer pursued, had bloodshot eyes, put his foot down during a field sobriety test and smelled strongly of alcohol); Soest v. Director of Revenue, 62 S.W.3d 619, 621 (Mo.A

2002See also Peters v. Director of Revenue, 35 S.W.3d 891 , 893 and 896-97 (Mo.App.2001)(probable cause existed based on the driver’s speeding, watery and glassy eyes, odor of intoxicants, and failure of the HGN test, which was the only field sobriety test conducted due to the slope of the ground and the driver’s claimed arthritis).

2006See Chancellor, 984 S.W.2d at 858 .

2002See, e.g., Soest, 62 S.W.3d at 621 ; Hawkins v. Director of Revenue, 7 S.W.3d 549, 551 (Mo.App.1999); Chancellor v. Lohman, 984 S.W.2d 857, 858 (Mo.App.1998).

2025See Turner v. Dir. of Revenue, 609 S.W.3d 492 , 498 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (“Though field sobriety tests are not required, the refusal to take field sobriety tests constitutes evidence of intoxication in administrative license proceedings.”); Flaiz v. Dir. of Revenue, 182 S.W.3d 244, 251 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (“[T]he respondent refused to submit to any field sobriety tests, which can also be used as evidence for a reasonable belief of intoxication.”); Hockman v. Dir. of Revenue, 103 S.W.3d 382, 385 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (“The refusal to take a field sobriety test is also 9 evidence of intoxication

2004Edmisten v. Director of Revenue, 92 S.W.3d 270, 274 (Mo.App.2002); Hockman, 103 S.W.3d at 385 .

2006See, e.g., Walker v. Director of Revenue, 137 S.W.3d 444, 446 (Mo. banc 2004) (probable cause existed because the driver was swerving, his movements were slow, he smelled of alcohol, had glassy eyes, admitted drinking two beers and failed a field sobriety test); Brown v. Director of Revenue, 85 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Mo. banc 2002) (probable cause existed because the driver made an illegal turn, did not immediately pull over when the officer pursued, had bloodshot eyes, put his foot down during a field sobriety test and smelled strongly of alcohol); Soest v. Director of Revenue, 62 S.W.3d 619, 621 (Mo.A

2005Walker, 137 S.W.3d at 446 .

2025See Swan, 268 S.W.3d at 427 ; State v. Swalve, 598 S.W.3d 682 , 685 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (“After speaking with Defendant, [Sergeant] (who was trained to identify intoxicated persons in connection with his job, as it was casino policy to disallow intoxicated persons on the casino floor) believed that Defendant was intoxicated based on him being argumentative, slurring his speech, and appearing red in the face.”); Hager v. Dir. of Revenue, 284 S.W.3d 192, 198 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (“After personally observing Hager, [Trooper] had reasonable grounds to believe that this error was the result of Hag

2025See Turner v. Dir. of Revenue, 609 S.W.3d 492 , 498 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) (“Though field sobriety tests are not required, the refusal to take field sobriety tests constitutes evidence of intoxication in administrative license proceedings.”); Flaiz v. Dir. of Revenue, 182 S.W.3d 244, 251 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (“[T]he respondent refused to submit to any field sobriety tests, which can also be used as evidence for a reasonable belief of intoxication.”); Hockman v. Dir. of Revenue, 103 S.W.3d 382, 385 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (“The refusal to take a field sobriety test is also 9 evidence of intoxication

2025See Edmisten v. Dir. of Revenue, 92 S.W.3d 270, 274 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) (citing Driver’s denial of driving erratically as evidence of intoxication); McCarthy v. Dir. of Revenue, 120 S.W.3d 760, 763 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003) (citing a driver’s unresponsive answers to the officer’s questions as evidence of intoxication). 8 Swisher engaged in arrogant and combative behavior that culminated in an extended rant that incorrectly argued with Officer about his purported mistakes in administering a field sobriety test.

2025See Swan, 268 S.W.3d at 427 ; State v. Swalve, 598 S.W.3d 682 , 685 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020) (“After speaking with Defendant, [Sergeant] (who was trained to identify intoxicated persons in connection with his job, as it was casino policy to disallow intoxicated persons on the casino floor) believed that Defendant was intoxicated based on him being argumentative, slurring his speech, and appearing red in the face.”); Hager v. Dir. of Revenue, 284 S.W.3d 192, 198 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (“After personally observing Hager, [Trooper] had reasonable grounds to believe that this error was the result of Hag

2022See Stolle, 179 S.W.3d at 472 ("Officer did not know when Driver consumed the alcoholic beverages, and the only field sobriety test Driver was given was administered improperly."); Boggs, 564 S.W.3d at 701-02 ("Because the trial court concluded that it could not be reasonably inferred from the historical facts that Boggs was intoxicated at 11:00 p.m. (the time of his accident), the trial court properly applied the law to the historical facts to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause to arrest Boggs for driving while intoxicated.").

2022See Stolle, 179 S.W.3d at 472 ("Officer did not know when Driver consumed the alcoholic beverages, and the only field sobriety test Driver was given was administered improperly."); Boggs, 564 S.W.3d at 701-02 ("Because the trial court concluded that it could not be reasonably inferred from the historical facts that Boggs was intoxicated at 11:00 p.m. (the time of his accident), the trial court properly applied the law to the historical facts to conclude that there was insufficient evidence to establish probable cause to arrest Boggs for driving while intoxicated.").

2012See State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 98-99 (Mo.App.2002) (setting out the requisite steps involved in the proper administration of an HGN test); State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Mo.App.1993) (containing the same explanation of what constitutes proper administration of an HGN test). 5 While defense counsel generally argued that failure to follow the NHTSA guidelines would affect the reliability of the tests, the trial court was presented with no evidence to that effect.

2012See State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90, 98-99 (Mo.App.2002) (setting out the requisite steps involved in the proper administration of an HGN test); State v. Hill, 865 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Mo.App.1993) (containing the same explanation of what constitutes proper administration of an HGN test). 5 While defense counsel generally argued that failure to follow the NHTSA guidelines would affect the reliability of the tests, the trial court was presented with no evidence to that effect.

2006See, e.g., Walker v. Director of Revenue, 137 S.W.3d 444, 446 (Mo. banc 2004) (probable cause existed because the driver was swerving, his movements were slow, he smelled of alcohol, had glassy eyes, admitted drinking two beers and failed a field sobriety test); Brown v. Director of Revenue, 85 S.W.3d 1, 7 (Mo. banc 2002) (probable cause existed because the driver made an illegal turn, did not immediately pull over when the officer pursued, had bloodshot eyes, put his foot down during a field sobriety test and smelled strongly of alcohol); Soest v. Director of Revenue, 62 S.W.3d 619, 621 (Mo.A

2002See, e.g., Soest, 62 S.W.3d at 621 ; Hawkins v. Director of Revenue, 7 S.W.3d 549, 551 (Mo.App.1999); Chancellor v. Lohman, 984 S.W.2d 857, 858 (Mo.App.1998).