302.510. Arresting officer, duties — certain arrests not to be basis for administrative suspension or revocation. — 1. Except as provided in subsection 3 of this section, a law enforcement officer who arrests any person for a violation of any state statute related to driving while intoxicated or for a violation of a county or municipal ordinance prohibiting driving while intoxicated or a county or municipal alcohol-related traffic offense, and in which the alcohol concentration in the person's blood, breath, or urine was eight-hundredths of one percent or more by weight or two-hundredths of one percent or more by weight for anyone less than twenty-one years of age, shall forward to the department a certified report of all information relevant to the enforcement action, including information which adequately identifies the arrested person, a statement of the officer's grounds for belief that the person violated any state statute related to driving while intoxicated or was less than twenty-one years of age and was driving with two-hundredths of one percent or more by weight of alcohol in the person's blood, or a county or municipal ordinance prohibiting driving while intoxicated or a county or municipal alcohol-related traffic offense, a report of the results of any chemical tests which were conducted, and a copy of the citation and complaint filed with the court.
2. The report required by this section shall be certified under penalties of perjury for making a false statement to a public official and made on forms supplied by the department or in a manner specified by regulations of the department.
3. A county or municipal ordinance prohibiting driving while intoxicated or a county or municipal alcohol-related traffic offense may not be the basis for suspension or revocation of a driver's license pursuant to sections 302.500 to 302.540, unless the arresting law enforcement officer, other than an elected peace officer or official, has been licensed by the director of the department of public safety pursuant to the provisions of chapter 590.
Notes of Decisions
Collins v. Dir. of Revenue, 691 S.W.2d 246 (Mo. 1985).
· cites it 4× “Section 302.510 requires the arresting officer to forward such records to the Department as a part of his verified report.”
Miller v. Dir. of Revenue, 719 S.W.2d 787 (Mo. 1986).
· cites it 7× “Pursuant to § 302.510, RSMo Cum.Supp. 1984, Officer Henning forwarded a verified report of appellant’s arrest and the results of appellant’s breath analysis test to the Department of Revenue.”
Barish v. Dir. of Revenue, 872 S.W.2d 167 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 7× “510 was amended effective July 1, 1992, to substitute “ten-hundredths” for “thirteen-hundredths” and to delete subsection 4 which did not allow suspension or revocation based upon an arrest made at a checkpoint or roadblock if there was not probable cause for the initial stop of…”
Arth v. Dir. of Revenue, 722 S.W.2d 606 (Mo. 1987).
· cites it 4× “This chapter creates a statutory obligation on the part of law enforcement officers to forward to the Department certain documents relevant to arrests made for alcohol-related traffic offenses.”
Sterneker v. Dir. of Revenue, 3 S.W.3d 808 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Hence, determination of this case hinges on whether Hamilton remained a law enforcement officer for purposes of § 302.510 when his patrol car left Gallatin’s city limits in pursuit of Sterneker’s vehicle for investigation of a violation of a Gallatin ordinance.”
Fitzgerald v. Dir. of Revenue, 922 S.W.2d 478 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The department shah 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.”
Strode v. Dir. of Revenue, 724 S.W.2d 245 (Mo. 1987).
· cites it 2× “13 percent, Officer Harris submitted a report to the Director of Revenue pursuant to § 302.510, RSMo 1986. The Director suspended respondent’s driving privileges.”
Whitworth v. Dir. of Revenue State of Missouri, 953 S.W.2d 142 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “Petitioner argued that he was prejudiced by his arresting officer’s delay in forwarding a report of the arrest to the Director under Section 302.510. Petitioner further claimed he was prejudiced by the arresting officer’s failure to immediately notify him of the license…”
Jennings v. Dir. of Revenue, 992 S.W.2d 249 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “4 Hence, determination of this case hinges on whether Bashor remained a law enforcement officer for purposes of § 302.510 when his patrol car left Cameron’s city limits in pursuit of Jennings’ pickup for investigation of a violation of a Cameron ordinance.”
Misuraca v. Dir. of Revenue, 896 S.W.2d 719 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 5× “10% or greater) for various driving while intoxicated statutes and ordinances to forward a report to the Department of Revenue.”
Siehndel v. Russell-Fischer, 114 S.W.3d 449 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Siehndel argues that Brody was no longer a law enforcement officer for purposes of § 302.510 because he was outside his jurisdiction when he arrested her.”
St. Pierre v. Dir. of Revenue, 39 S.W.3d 576 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
“Continuing, the Sterneker court observed, “[w]ere we to add to § 302.510 the requirements which the circuit court imposed [compliance with § 544.”
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.