302.545. Expungement of records, when. — 1. Any person who is less than twenty-one years of age and whose driving privilege has been suspended or revoked, for a first determination under sections 302.500 to 302.540, that such person was driving with two-hundredths of one percent of blood alcohol content, shall have all official records and all recordations maintained by the department of revenue of such suspension or revocation expunged two years after the date of such suspension or revocation, or when such person attains the age of twenty-one, whichever date first occurs. Such expungement shall be performed by the department of revenue without need of a court order. No records shall be expunged if the person was found guilty or pled guilty to operating a commercial motor vehicle, as defined in section 302.700, or if the person was holding a commercial driver's license at the time of the offense, with a blood alcohol content of at least four-hundredths of one percent.
2. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any person whose license is suspended or revoked for a second or subsequent time pursuant to subsection 1 of this section or who is convicted of any alcohol-related driving offense before the age of twenty-one including, but not limited to:
(1) Driving while intoxicated pursuant to section 577.010; or
(2) Driving with excessive blood alcohol content pursuant to section 577.012.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 2000–2017 · leading case:
State v. Wilson, 55 S.W.3d 851 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Wilson, 55 S.W.3d 851 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 14× “The Director also argues that because there is a specific statute, § 302.545 RSMo 1998 Cum.Supp., dealing with expungement of records of administrative actions, that statute is the exclusive remedy for the removal of such records.”
Matthew S. Grzybinski v. Dir. of Revenue, 479 S.W.3d 742 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 5× “The director expunged the administrative suspension of the petitioner’s driving privilege from his driving record pursuant to section 302.545 RSMo. (Supp. 2013) prior to briefing, oral argument, and submission of this appeal.”
Baldwin v. Dir. of Revenue, 38 S.W.3d 401 (Mo. 2001).
· cites it 4× “[3] Specifically, Ford stated: "Section 302.545... authorizes the expungement of the Department records, but it applies only to persons under twenty-one years of age whose driving privilege has been suspended or revoked for a first determination that they were driving with a…”
Rundquist v. Dir. of Revenue, 62 S.W.3d 643 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 7× “Section 302.545 RSMo Cum.Supp.1999. “‘When the same subject matter is addressed in general terms in one statute and in specific terms in another, the more specific controls over the more general.”
McNally v. St. Louis Cnty. Police Dep't, 17 S.W.3d 614 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 7× “Section 302.545 RSMo (Cum.Supp.1998). “When the same subject matter is addressed in general terms in one statute and in specific terms in another, the more specific controls over the more general.”
Rozier v. Dir. of Revenue, 164 S.W.3d 108 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 8× “*110 The court recognized that the legislature enacted Section 302.545 to deal specifically with expungement of Department of Revenue records.”
Dir. of Revenue v. Klenke, 29 S.W.3d 391 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 7× “In addition, this court recognized that the legislature enacted a statute, section 302.545 RSMo. Cum.Supp.1998, that deals specifically with expungement of Department of Revenue records.”
Zlotopolski v. Dir. of Revenue, 62 S.W.3d 466 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Director urges the relevant ex-pungement statute, Section 302.545, and the relevant statute pertaining to an exemption from the proof of insurance requirement, Section 302.”
Ford v. Dir. of Revenue, 11 S.W.3d 106 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 3× “For instance, Section 302.545, RSMo Cum.Supp.1998, authorizes the expungement of the Department records, but it applies only to persons under twenty-one years of age whose driving privilege has been suspended or revoked for a first determination that they were driving with a…”
Bright v. Ray, 520 S.W.3d 482 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 8× “130 further supports the construction and interpretation of “alcohol-related driving offense” urged by Petitioner; (C) the definition of “alcohol-related driving offense” as contained in Section 302.545 of the Town and Country City Code provides some guidance to its meaning in…”
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.