577.021. Chemical testing authorized — reasonable efforts to test required — admissibility. — 1. Any state, county or municipal law enforcement officer who is certified pursuant to chapter 590 may, prior to arrest, administer a chemical test to any person suspected of operating a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft or acting as a flight crew member of an aircraft while in an intoxicated condition or with an excessive blood alcohol content.
2. Any state, county, or municipal law enforcement officer who is certified under chapter 590 shall make all reasonable efforts to administer a chemical test to any person suspected of operating a vehicle or vessel involved in a collision or accident which resulted in a fatality or serious physical injury as defined in section 556.061.
3. A test administered pursuant to this section shall be admissible as evidence of probable cause to arrest and as exculpatory evidence, but shall not be admissible as evidence of blood alcohol content. The provisions of sections 577.019 and 577.020 shall not apply to a test administered prior to arrest pursuant to this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2023 · leading case:
State v. Stottlemyre, 35 S.W.3d 854 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Stottlemyre, 35 S.W.3d 854 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 15× “The use of such tests is governed by § 577.021, RSMo Cum.Supp.1997, 2 which reads as follows: A member of the state highway patrol may, prior to arrest, administer a chemical test to any person suspected of operating a motor vehicle in violation of section 577.”
York v. Dir. of Revenue, 186 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. 2006).
· cites it 6× “The Director argues that the trial court erred when excluding the results of the PBT because section 577.021 does not require any foundation for the admission of these tests.”
State v. Morgenroth, 227 S.W.3d 517 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 7× “A test administered pursuant to this section shall be admissible as evidence of probable cause to arrest and as exculpatory evidence, but shall not be admissible as evidence of blood alcohol content.”
State v. Pike, 162 S.W.3d 464 (Mo. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Section 577.021. The field sobriety tests strengthened the trooper’s suspicions that Pike was intoxicated, and Pike was arrested for driving while intoxicated at approximately 2:47 a.”
State v. Duncan, 27 S.W.3d 486 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 7× “Duncan points to § 577.021 RSMo (1994), which states that evidence of a portable breath test “shall not be admissible as evidence of blood alcohol content.”
Just. v. Dir. of Revenue, 890 S.W.2d 728 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 5× “The only provision dealing with a portable breath test is found in § 577.021, RSMo Supp.1993, which provides for the administration of a chemical test to any person suspected of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated in order to establish probable cause to arrest or for use…”
State v. Eisenhour, 410 S.W.3d 771 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 9× “Section 577.021 provides, in pertinent part: 1.”
State v. Robertson, 328 S.W.3d 745 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to section 577.021, these methods and standards are not applicable to a portable breathalyzer test administered prior to a person’s arrest.”
State v. Burks, 373 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “He argues that such evidence is not admissible pursuant to § 577.021 RSMo Cum.Supp. (2009). We find no merit in that argument.”
Paty v. Dir. of Revenue, State, 168 S.W.3d 625 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 6× “Because the trial court also disbelieved Trooper Baker’s testimony that Driver had slurred speech, a wobbling gait, had watery, glassy, bloodshot eyes and smelled of intoxicants, the only evidence from which an argument could be made that Trooper Baker had probable cause to…”
State of Missouri v. Kathryn Avent, 432 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “These facts were sufficient for Corporal Angle to suspect that Hollon may have been driving while intoxicated and justified his decision to administer a portable breath test as authorized by § 577.021 [the results of which indicated that Hollon‟s blood alcohol level was over the…”
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.