577.029. Blood alcohol content tests, how made, by whom, when — person tested to receive certain information, when. — A licensed physician, registered nurse, phlebotomist, or trained medical technician, acting at the request and direction of the law enforcement officer under section 577.020, shall, with the consent of the patient or a warrant issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, withdraw blood for the purpose of determining the alcohol content of the blood, unless such medical personnel, in his or her good faith medical judgment, believes such procedure would endanger the life or health of the person in custody. Blood may be withdrawn only by such medical personnel, but such restriction shall not apply to the taking of a breath test, a saliva specimen, or a urine specimen. In withdrawing blood for the purpose of determining the alcohol content thereof, only a previously unused and sterile needle and sterile vessel shall be utilized and the withdrawal shall otherwise be in strict accord with accepted medical practices. Upon the request of the person who is tested, full information concerning the test taken at the direction of the law enforcement officer shall be made available to him or her.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
32
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case:
State v. Jordan, 181 S.W.3d 588 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Jordan, 181 S.W.3d 588 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 12× “Defendant argues the State failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of the test results because it failed to prove that the blood drawn from Defendant was done so by a previously unused and sterile needle and sterile container as required by Section 577.029. Defendant…”
Neeley v. Dir. of Revenue, 104 S.W.3d 797 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 12× “He held that the Director failed to meet her burden of proof in showing the blood draw from Neeley met all the requirements of § 577.029 and the applicable Missouri Department of Health regulations, and ordered reinstatement of Neeley’s driving privileges.”
State v. Hanners, 774 S.W.2d 568 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 16× “Specifically, section 577.029 RSMo 1986, requires that “a nonalcoholic antiseptic shall be used for cleansing the skin prior to venapuncture,” and that “only a previously unused and sterile needle and sterile vessel shall be utilized.”
Roberson v. Vincent, 290 S.W.3d 110 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 21× “In response, the Director argued that the newly amended section 577.029 RSMo Cum.Supp.2007, effective June 30, 2007, had been revised and no longer required the use of a non-alcoholic antiseptic during blood draws to admit blood test results into evidence.”
State v. Setter, 763 S.W.2d 228 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “020, RSMo 1986, which provides that blood samples must be drawn according to § 577.029, RSMo 1986, which states: A licensed physician, registered nurse, or trained medical technician at the place of his employment, acting at the request and direction of the law enforcement…”
Smith v. Dir. of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 120 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Smith calls for a strict application of § 577.029, which says, “A licensed physician, registered nurse, or trained medical technician at the place of his employment, acting at the request and direction of the law enforcement officer, shall withdraw blood for the purpose of…”
Mayridis v. Dir. of Revenue, 155 S.W.3d 775 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 8× “Driver claimed that Director did not make a prima facie case for the suspension of his driving privileges in that Director failed to show that the blood collection and test methods were performed within the requirements of section 577.029 and 19 C.S.R. section 25-30.”
Borgen v. Dir. of Revenue, 877 S.W.2d 172 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “Section 577.029, RSMo 1986, requires a blood test to be performed by a licensed physician, registered nurse, or trained medical technician at the place of his employment.”
State v. Yarbrough, 332 S.W.3d 882 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 5× “2d at 59 (quoting section 577.029, RSMo 2000). Most importantly, section 577.”
State of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent v. Theresa Fortner, 451 S.W.3d 746 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “In accordance with these provisions, the proponent of a blood alcohol test must meet certain foundational prerequisites as set forth in § 577.029, and the applicable department of health regulations.”
Francis v. Dir. of Revenue, 85 S.W.3d 56 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “That statement reads as follows: In accordance with the provisions of section 577.029 RSMo, at the place of my *58 employment and at the request and direction of a law enforcement officer, I withdrew blood from Shawn D.”
State v. Moore, 128 S.W.3d 115 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Further, Defendant claims neither blood test was administered pursuant to Section 577.029 RSMo (2000), and as such, the results were unreliable and should have been excluded at trial.”
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.