Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.505 (2026)

Determination by department to suspend or revoke license, when made, basis

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

302.505. Determination by department to suspend or revoke license, when made, basis — final, when. — 1. The department shall suspend or revoke the license of any person upon its determination that the person was arrested upon probable cause to believe such person was driving a motor vehicle while the alcohol concentration in the person's blood, breath, or urine was eight-hundredths of one percent or more by weight, based on the definition of alcohol concentration in section 302.500, or where such person was less than twenty-one years of age when stopped and was stopped upon probable cause to believe such person was driving while intoxicated in violation of section 577.010, or driving with excessive blood alcohol content in violation of section 577.012, or upon probable cause to believe such person violated a state, county or municipal traffic offense and such person was driving with a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or more by weight.

2. The department shall make a determination of these facts on the basis of the report of a law enforcement officer required in section 302.510, and this determination shall be final unless a hearing is requested and held. If a hearing is held, the department shall review the matter and make a final determination on the basis of evidence received at the hearing.

3. The determination of these facts by the department is independent of the determination of the same or similar facts in the adjudication of any criminal charges arising out of the same occurrence. The disposition of those criminal charges shall not affect any suspension or revocation under this section.

--------

(L. 1983 S.B. 318 & 135 § 3, A.L. 1984 S.B. 608 & 681, A.L. 1991 S.B. 125 & 341, A.L. 1996 H.B. 1169 & 1271 merged with S.B. 722, A.L. 2001 H.B. 302 & 38)

Effective 9-29-01

(1985) Held that the provisions of this section are not impermissibly vague or violative of the equal protection clause. Vetter v. King (Mo. banc), 691 S.W.2d 255.

(1986) Probable cause that a person has been "driving" under this section was found even though the machine stands motionless, where such person is found unconscious behind the wheel with the motor running and the transmission in "drive". Dalton v. McNeill, 713 S.W.2d 26 (Mo. App.).

(1997) Where a driver was behind the wheel and had turned on the ignition of a vehicle parked in a driveway at the time of his arrest for driving while intoxicated, the driver was sufficiently in control of the vehicle to support an administrative suspension of his license. Lasley v. Director of Revenue, 954 S.W.2d 327 (Mo.banc).

(2001) Motorist who was under age 21 and had a blood alcohol content of .133% when stopped was subject to license suspension; special safeguard provision requiring probable cause for the initial stop was not applicable. Baldwin v. Director of Revenue, 38 S.W.3d 401 (Mo.banc).

(2001) License suspension and revocation proceeding is a civil proceeding and thus the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause does not apply. Krieg v. Director of Revenue, 39 S.W.3d 574 (Mo.App.E.D.).

(2003) Person sitting in driver's seat of vehicle, either asleep or unconscious and with key in ignition and engine running, is operating the vehicle within meaning of section. Cox v. Director of Revenue, 98 S.W.3d 548 (Mo.banc).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 441 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. 2010). · cites it 26× “White filed a petition with the trial court to review the suspension of his license. After a trial de novo, the trial court reinstated his driving privilege.”

Cox v. Dir. of Revenue, 98 S.W.3d 548 (Mo. 2003). · cites it 22× “The Director suspended Cox's driving privileges pursuant to section 302.505, RSMo Supp.1997. [1] Cox requested a trial de novo in circuit court.”

Riche v. Dir. of Revenue, 987 S.W.2d 331 (Mo. 1999). · cites it 27× “The Director of Revenue suspended the driver’s license of appellant George Riche pursuant to section 302.505, RSMo (Supp. 1997). On direct appeal to this Court, Riche challenges the constitutionality of subsection 1 of section 302.”

Brown v. Dir. of Revenue, 85 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. 2002). · cites it 10× “The appeal follows a trial de novo after an administrative hearing upheld the director’s suspension/revoeation of Brown’s license pursuant to section 302.505. 2 At the time of Brown’s arrest, that section allowed suspension or revocation upon a determination that there was…”

Hampton v. Dir. of Revenue, 22 S.W.3d 217 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 21× “Respondent Roy Hampton was arrested for driving while intoxicated and, pursuant to Section 302.505 RSMo. Cum.Supp.1996, the Director suspended his driving privileges.”

Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp., 996 S.W.2d 47 (Mo. 1999). · cites it 9× “Riche was a direct appeal in which this Court based its jurisdiction on appeb lant’s challenge to the constitutionality of section 302.505, RSMo Supp.1997, which authorizes administrative driver’s license suspensión and revocation for driving while intoxicated.”

Collins v. Dir. of Revenue, 691 S.W.2d 246 (Mo. 1985). · cites it 8× “13 percent at the time of the arrest, as allegedly required by § 302.505. And they assert that there was no sufficient foundation for the breathalyzer examination test results.”

Endsley v. Dir. of Revenue, 6 S.W.3d 153 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 20× “Endsley, after it had been administratively suspended for driving while intoxicated (DWI) pursuant to § 302.505. [1] In his sole point on appeal, the Director claims that the trial court erred in reinstating the respondent's driver's license because he carried his burden of…”

Hinnah v. Dir. of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. 2002). · cites it 4× “4, RSMo, states in part: "The sole issue at the hearing shall be whether by a preponderance of the evidence the person was driving a vehicle pursuant to the circumstances set out in section 302.505. The burden of proof shall be on the state to adduce such evidence.”

Covert v. Fisher, 151 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 10× “Petitioner appeals from the judgment of the circuit court upholding the suspension of petitioner’s driver’s license by the Director of Revenue (the director) pursuant to Section 302.505 RSMo (2001 Supp.). The suspension was based on petitioner’s arrest for driving a golf cart…”

Garriott v. Dir. of Revenue, 130 S.W.3d 613 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 14× “Although Riche specifically addresses license revocations under section 302.505, such proceedings are not different in character from license revocations under section 577.”

Murphy v. Dir. of Revenue, 170 S.W.3d 507 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “08 percent for revocation of his license under section 302.505. The trial court entered judgment summarily sustaining the Director’s revocation of Murphy’s driver’s license.”

Show all 441 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 302.505(1) — 5 cases

State v. Wilson, 55 S.W.3d 851 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Francis v. Dir. of Revenue, 85 S.W.3d 56 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Stuart v. Dir. of Revenue, 761 S.W.2d 234 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).

Williams v. Dir. of Revenue, 721 S.W.2d 797 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).

Bass v. Dir. of Revenue, 720 S.W.2d 451 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).

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.