portable breath test in Missouri

2014See Peters v. Director of Revenue, 35 S.W.3d 891, 896-97 (Mo.App.

2014See Peters v. Director of Revenue, 35 S.W.3d 891, 896-97 (Mo. App. S.D. 2001) (holding probable cause to arrest established where driver was pulled over for speeding, 11 It is also conceded in Hollon that Hollon failed two field sobriety tests and passed two others; but, since it was determined by the trial court that Corporal Angle had failed to properly administer the field sobriety tests, the results of those tests were ignored by this court in its appellate opinion.

2023In contrast, in Roux, the court of appeals held it was an abuse of discretion not to admit the “actual, numerical result” of a preliminary breath test for the purpose of establishing probable cause because “the actual numerical value of the test is what makes the result of the portable breath test relevant to the issue of probable cause.” Roux, 554 S.W.3d at 418 - 19.

2020Thus, “the result of a portable breath test is admissible to show an officer had probable cause to arrest.” State v. Roux, 554 S.W.3d 416, 418 (Mo. App. 2017).

2020It is well settled that “[t]he trial court is presumed to know and apply the law[.]” State v. Selph, 568 S.W.3d 561, 568 (Mo. App. 2019).

2017It is true the admissibility of the result of a portable breath test is "narrowly restricted by statute." State v. Morgenroth , 227 S.W.3d 517 , 521 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007).

2017See , e.g., Morgenroth , 227 S.W.3d at 522 (quoting § 577.021.3).

2014Where a motion to suppress, has been filed by a criminal defendant, “[t]he State has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the motion to suppress should be denied.” State v. Emmett, 346 S.W.3d 418, 420 (Mo.App.

2014Where a motion to suppress has been filed by a criminal defendant, "[t]he State has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the motion to suppress should be denied." State v. Emmett, 346 S.W.3d 418, 420 (Mo. App. S.D. 2011) (internal quotation omitted).

2014These facts were sufficient for Corporal Angle to suspect that Hollon may have been driving while intoxicated and justified his decision to administer a portable breath test as authorized by § 577.021 [the results of which indicated that Hollon’s blood alcohol level was over the legal limit]. 11 277 S.W.3d 734, 736 (Mo.App.

2014These facts were sufficient for Corporal Angle to suspect that Hollon may have been driving while intoxicated and justified his decision to administer a portable breath test as authorized by § 577.021 [the results of which indicated that Hollon‟s blood alcohol level was over the legal limit].11 277 S.W.3d 734, 736 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) (emphasis added).

2012See Soest, 62 S.W.3d at 620 (admission of drinking gave an officer opportunity to offer driver to take a portable breath analysis test).

2008Hollon attempts to liken this case to York v. Director of Revenue, 186 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. banc 2006), and Paty v. Director of Revenue, 168 S.W.3d 625 (Mo.App.

2008The officer testified at trial that she had not been trained on how to use the portable breath test and “admitted at trial that she improperly administered [the three field sobriety tests and the portable breath test] and that her failure to do so seriously compromised their validity.” Id. at 269, 271 .

2008Hollon attempts to liken this case to York v. Director of Revenue, 186 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. banc 2006), and Paty v. Director of Revenue, 168 S.W.3d 625 (Mo.App.

2008Paty, 168 S.W.3d at 627, 631-32 .

2004State v. Stottlemyre, 35 S.W.3d 854, 858 (Mo.App.

2002See id. at 896 .

2002See id. at 896 .

2001State v. Duncan, 27 S.W.3d 486, 488 (Mo.App.2000).

2001As this court stated in Justice v. Director of Revenue, 890 S.W.2d 728, 731 (Mo.App.1995), “[a] test administered with a portable breath analyzer does not constitute a test within the scope of § 577.020.” Therefore, the standards set forth in §§ 577.020 and 577.026 do not apply to the portable breath test administered to Mr. Stottlemyre in this case.