302.312. Department of revenue and department of health and senior services, bureau of vital statistics, records, admissible in evidence, when — computer terminal printout of individual driving record admissible as evidence, printout available to driver, when, fee. — 1. Copies of all papers, documents, and records lawfully deposited or filed in the offices of the department of revenue or the bureau of vital records of the department of health and senior services and copies of any records, properly certified by the appropriate custodian or the director, shall be admissible as evidence in all courts of this state and in all administrative proceedings.
2. A computer terminal printout of an individual driving record through the Missouri uniform law enforcement system from the department of revenue database, certified by an officer of the local law enforcement agency, shall be admissible in evidence in all courts of this state. A local law enforcement agency equipped with a computer terminal shall provide a motor vehicle driver with a copy of such printout relating to the license of such motor vehicle driver upon the execution of a written request. The local law enforcement agency may charge an administrative fee not to exceed five dollars per copy.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
102
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case:
Mills v. Dir. of Revenue, 964 S.W.2d 873 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
Mills v. Dir. of Revenue, 964 S.W.2d 873 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 20× “Additionally, the trial court sustained objections of lack of foundation and authentication under Section 302.312 RSMo (1996). Due to the exclusion of Exhibit B, there was “no evidence that the officer had probable cause to believe [Respondent] was operating a motor vehicle…”
James D. Ridgway, Jr. v. Dir. of Revenue, 573 S.W.3d 129 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 15× “After multiple continuances attempting to compel by Missouri subpoena the presence of the Trooper, who had since become an FBI agent on traveling assignment, hearing was held; the only evidence received was the Department’s records related to the stop, submitted under Section…”
Doughty v. Dir. of Revenue, 387 S.W.3d 383 (Mo. 2013).
· cites it 20× “The Doughtys claim section 302.312 1 violates the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Missouri Constitution because it permits department of revenue records to be admitted in evidence in violation of the Doughtys’ due process rights…”
State of Missouri v. Sidney L. Clark III, 503 S.W.3d 235 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 10× “Here, to the extent the challenged documents contained hearsay within them, section 302.312 generally provides an exception to the hearsay rule for certified records of the Department of Revenue.”
Connelly v. Dir. of Revenue, 291 S.W.3d 318 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 18× “1998), the Southern District dealt specifically with the issue of whether the maintenance report was a Department of Health record and therefore was not admissible as a Department of Revenue record despite Section 302.312. The court concluded “if copies of records that were…”
Coleman v. Dir. of Revenue, 970 S.W.2d 394 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 17× “Director’s first point reads: “The trial court erred in excluding from evidence Exhibit 1, which consisted of copies of Department of Revenue records, because these records were admissible as evidence under § 302.312, RSMo Supp. 1997, which was amended after the decision in…”
State v. Pylypczuk, 527 S.W.3d 96 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 7× “Section 302.312 expressly addresses the admissibility of DOR records.”
Russell v. Dir. of Revenue, 35 S.W.3d 507 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 10× “The director conceded that the records had not been served on driver before trial, but argued that the records were certified under section 302.312, which does not contain a service requirement.”
Erskine v. Dir. of Revenue, 428 S.W.3d 789 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 10× “” DOR’s sole point on appeal claims the trial court erred in granting Erskine’s motion to strike thereby excluding DOR’s Exhibit A pursuant to section 302.312. 2 We reverse the trial court’s June 5, 2013 “Amended Judgment and Order.”
Clark v. Dir. of Revenue, 132 S.W.3d 272 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 7× “This certification included the following language: “It is further certified pursuant to Section 302.312 RSMo., that the records attached hereto are exact duplicates of the original records lawfully filed or deposited with the Department of Revenue by the reporting agency or…”
Hackmann v. Dir. of Revenue, 991 S.W.2d 751 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 7× “This certification included the following language: “It is further certified pursuant to Section 302.312 RSMo., that the records attached hereto are exact duplicates of the original records lawfully filed or deposited with the Department of Revenue by the reporting agency or…”
Hobbs v. Dir. of Revenue, 51 S.W.3d 874 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 9× “” Section 302.312, RSMo 1998, provides as follows: 1.”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.312(1) — 3 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.