Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.020 (2026)

Chemical tests for alcohol content of blood

✓ current as of May 2026

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

577.020. Chemical tests for alcohol content of blood — consent implied, when — administered, when, how — information available to person tested, contents — videotaping of chemical or field sobriety test admissible evidence. — 1. Any person who operates a vehicle upon the public highways of this state, a vessel, or any aircraft, or acts as a flight crew member of an aircraft shall be deemed to have given consent, subject to the provisions of sections 577.019 to 577.041, to a chemical test or tests of the person's breath, blood, saliva, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol or drug content of the person's blood pursuant to the following circumstances:

(1) If the person is arrested for any offense arising out of acts which the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe were committed while the person was operating a vehicle or a vessel while in an intoxicated condition;

(2) If the person is detained for any offense of operating an aircraft while intoxicated under section 577.015 or operating an aircraft with excessive blood alcohol content under section 577.016;

(3) If the person is under the age of twenty-one, has been stopped by a law enforcement officer, and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that such person was operating a vehicle or a vessel with a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or more by weight;

(4) If the person is under the age of twenty-one, has been stopped by a law enforcement officer, and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that such person has committed a violation of the traffic laws of the state, or any political subdivision of the state, and such officer has reasonable grounds to believe, after making such stop, that such person has a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or greater;

(5) If the person is under the age of twenty-one, has been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint or roadblock and the law enforcement officer has reasonable grounds to believe that such person has a blood alcohol content of two-hundredths of one percent or greater; or

(6) If the person, while operating a vehicle, has been involved in a collision or accident which resulted in a fatality or a readily apparent serious physical injury as defined in section 556.061, or has been arrested as evidenced by the issuance of a uniform traffic ticket for the violation of any state law or county or municipal ordinance with the exception of equipment violations contained in chapters 306 and 307, or similar provisions contained in county or municipal ordinances.

The test shall be administered at the direction of the law enforcement officer whenever the person has been stopped, detained, or arrested for any reason.

2. The implied consent to submit to the chemical tests listed in subsection 1 of this section shall be limited to not more than two such tests arising from the same stop, detention, arrest, incident or charge.

3. To be considered valid, chemical analysis of the person's breath, blood, saliva, or urine shall be performed, according to methods approved by the state department of health and senior services, by licensed medical personnel or by a person possessing a valid permit issued by the state department of health and senior services for this purpose.

4. The state department of health and senior services shall approve satisfactory techniques, devices, equipment, or methods to be used in the chemical test pursuant to the provisions of sections 577.019 to 577.041. The department shall also establish standards to ascertain the qualifications and competence of individuals to conduct such analyses and issue permits which shall be subject to termination or revocation by the state department of health and senior services.

5. The person tested may have a physician, or a qualified technician, chemist, registered nurse, or other qualified person at the choosing and expense of the person to be tested, administer a test in addition to any administered at the direction of a law enforcement officer. The failure or inability to obtain an additional test by a person shall not preclude the admission of evidence relating to the test taken at the direction of a law enforcement officer.

6. Upon the request of the person who is tested, full information concerning the test shall be made available to such person. Full information is limited to the following:

(1) The type of test administered and the procedures followed;

(2) The time of the collection of the blood, breath, or urine sample analyzed;

(3) The numerical results of the test indicating the alcohol content of the blood and breath and urine;

(4) The type and status of any permit which was held by the person who performed the test;

(5) If the test was administered by means of a breath-testing instrument, the date of the most recent maintenance of such instrument.

Full information does not include manuals, schematics, or software of the instrument used to test the person or any other material that is not in the actual possession of the state. Additionally, full information does not include information in the possession of the manufacturer of the test instrument.

7. Any person given a chemical test of the person's breath pursuant to subsection 1 of this section or a field sobriety test may be videotaped during any such test at the direction of the law enforcement officer. Any such video recording made during the chemical test pursuant to this subsection or a field sobriety test shall be admissible as evidence at any trial of such person for a violation of any state law or county or municipal ordinance, and at any license revocation or suspension proceeding held pursuant to the provisions of chapter 302.

--------

(L. 1977 S.B. 60, A.L. 1982 S.B. 513, A.L. 1983 S.B. 318 & 135, A.L. 1996 H.B. 1169 & 1271 merged with S.B. 722, A.L. 1998 S.B. 634, A.L. 2001 H.B. 144 & 46, A.L. 2006 S.B. 872, et al., A.L. 2014 S.B. 491, A.L. 2014 H.B. 1371)

Effective 1-01-17

(1985) The arrested person does not have a choice of which statutory test to take. If a choice were allowed, the person could avoid taking the test by choosing one which was unavailable. Kiso v. King (A.), 691 S.W.2d 374.

(1987) Department of Health rules on approved methods and techniques for chemical analysis of blood alcohol relate to evidence, are procedural and may be applied retrospectively. State v. Kummer, 741 S.W.2d 285 (Mo.App.E.D.).

(2019) Implied consent provisions of this section and section 577.033 do not permit warrantless blood draws from unresponsive subjects in criminal cases, absent evidence of exigent circumstances. State v. Osborn, 591 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.App. W.D.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 262 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Hinnah v. Dir. of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hinnah v. Dir. of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. 2002). · cites it 20× “[3] Section 577.020, RSMo, states in part: "Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent to, subject to the provisions of sections 577.”

State v. Stottlemyre, 35 S.W.3d 854 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 25× “The last line of the statute exempts pre-arrest breath tests from the requirements *859 and provisions of § 577.020, RSMo Cum. Supp.1997. 3 Section 577.”

State v. Rose, 86 S.W.3d 90 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 10× “Section 577.020 provides that any person who operates a motor vehicle on Missouri highways shall be deemed to have consented to chemical testing of the person's breath, blood, saliva, or urine to determine the blood alcohol content if the person has been arrested upon reasonable…”

State v. Smith, 134 S.W.3d 35 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 13× “Section 577.020 RSMo (Supp.2001) sets out the circumstances in which a motor vehicle operator upon the public highways of Missouri is deemed to have given consent to a chemical test of breath, blood, saliva, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcohol or drug content of…”

Murphy v. Dir. of Revenue, 170 S.W.3d 507 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 15× “3 After paramedics treated Murphy’s injuries and placed him inside the ambulance, Trooper Kelly advised Murphy of his rights under the implied consent law, sections 577.020 to 577.041. Murphy refused to give a blood sample.”

State v. Dvorak, 295 S.W.3d 493 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 17× “refuses upon the request of the officer to submit to any test allowed pursuant to section 577.020, then none shall be given and evidence of the refusal shall be admissible in a proceeding pursuant to section 565.”

Rogers v. Dir. of Revenue, 184 S.W.3d 137 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 16× “Section 577.020, RSMo Cum.Supp.2004, states, in relevant part: 1.”

Rothwell v. Dir. of Revenue, 419 S.W.3d 200 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 12× “020 requires a driver to consent to up to two different types of chemical testing, refusal to submit to one type of test will always support administrative revocation pursuant to section 577.041. 5 We disagree. Section 577.”

State v. Pike, 162 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. 2005). · cites it 4× “Section 577.020. The parties stipulated to the introduction of Pike’s driving record showing that his license was revoked at the time of the stop.”

State v. Yarbrough, 332 S.W.3d 882 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 20× “The implied consent law, contained in section 577.020, states in part: “Any person who operates a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this state shall be deemed to have given consent to, subject to the provisions of sections 577.”

Kotar v. Dir. of Revenue, 169 S.W.3d 921 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 8× “3, for his refusal to submit to a breath test, as authorized by § 577.020, after he had been arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI).”

Nace v. Dir. of Revenue, 123 S.W.3d 252 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 12× “§ 577.020. Ms. Nace’s driver’s license was revoked under Section 577.”

Show all 262 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.020(3) — 4 cases

Miller v. Dir. of Revenue, 719 S.W.2d 787 (Mo. 1986).

Woodall v. Dir. of Revenue, 795 S.W.2d 419 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Matthew Carvalho v. Dir. of Revenue (Mo. 2019).

Vance v. McNeill, 711 S.W.2d 527 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.020(4) — 3 cases

State v. Calvert, 682 S.W.2d 474 (Mo. 1984).

Woodall v. Dir. of Revenue, 795 S.W.2d 419 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).

Matthew Carvalho v. Dir. of Revenue (Mo. 2019).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.020(6) — 1 case

State v. McNeary, 721 S.W.2d 168 (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.