Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.041 (2026)

Refusal to submit to chemical test

✓ current as of May 2026

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

577.041. Refusal to submit to chemical test — admissibility — request to include reasons and effect of refusal. — 1. If a person under arrest, or who has been detained pursuant to subdivision (2) of subsection 1 of section 577.020, or stopped pursuant to subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection 1 of section 577.020, refuses upon the request of the officer to submit to any test allowed pursuant to section 577.020, then evidence of the refusal shall be admissible in any proceeding related to the acts resulting in such detention, stop, or arrest.

2. The request of the officer to submit to any chemical test shall include the reasons of the officer for requesting the person to submit to a test and also shall inform the person that evidence of refusal to take the test may be used against such person. If such person was operating a vehicle prior to such detention, stop, or arrest, he or she shall further be informed that his or her license shall be immediately revoked upon refusal to take the test.

3. If a person when requested to submit to any test allowed pursuant to section 577.020 requests to speak to an attorney, the person shall be granted twenty minutes in which to attempt to contact an attorney. If, upon the completion of the twenty-minute period the person continues to refuse to submit to any test, it shall be deemed a refusal.

--------

(L. 1982 S.B. 513, A.L. 1987 S.B. 230, A.L. 1991 S.B. 125 & 341, A.L. 1993 S.B. 167 merged with S.B. 180, A.L. 1996 H.B. 1169 & 1271 merged with S.B. 722, A.L. 1998 S.B. 634, A.L. 2001 H.B. 302 & 38, A.L. 2002 H.B. 2062, A.L. 2003 H.B. 600, A.L. 2005 H.B. 353 merged with H.B. 487, A.L. 2008 S.B. 930 & 947, A.L. 2010 H.B. 1695, et al., A.L. 2013 S.B. 23, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491, A.L. 2014 H.B. 1371)

Effective 1-01-17

(1988) Person may have limited right to consult with counsel prior to taking test, but there is no right to have an attorney present during test or to condition taking of test on presence of attorney. Kilpatrick v. Director of Revenue, 756 S.W.2d 214 (Mo.App.E.D.).

(1989) It is not a denial of equal protection when statute requires director of revenue to revoke driver's license for refusing to take chemical tests and then revoke driver's license for accumulation of points without a showing that all similarly situated drivers were not treated equally. (Mo.App.W.D.) Brown v. Director of Revenue, 772 S.W.2d 398)

(2010) Twenty-minute waiting period begins running immediately after the officer has informed the driver of the implied consent law, regardless of whether the driver requested an attorney before or after the information was provided. Norris v. Director of Revenue, 304 S.W.3d 724 (Mo. en banc).

(2019) Motorist's refusal to consent to chemical test was not voluntary and unequivocal under section, where law enforcement officer deprived him of the right to confer privately with his attorney and where the Director of Revenue failed to show that he was not prejudiced by the action. Roesing v. Director of Revenue, 573 S.W.3d 634 (Mo.).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 470 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1984–2024 · leading case: White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

White v. Dir. of Revenue, 321 S.W.3d 298 (Mo. 2010). · cites it 20× “In prior cases cited by the director, this Court and the court of appeals ruled contrary to the assignment by the legislature of the burden of proof and the burden of producing evidence in section 302.535 as well as its direction that the rules of civil procedure govern trials…”

Hunsucker v. Fischer, 221 S.W.3d 433 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 48× “Director revoked Hunsucker's driver's license for one year pursuant to Section 577.041 RSMo [1] after Hunsucker refused to submit to a chemical test of his blood alcohol concentration.”

Rothwell v. Dir. of Revenue, 419 S.W.3d 200 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 28× “The Director of the Department of Revenue (“Director”) appeals the trial court’s judgment setting aside the revocation of JW Bruton Rothwell’s (“Rothwell”) driver’s license pursuant to section 577.041. 1 The Director argues that Rothwell’s initial refusal to submit to a breath…”

Hinnah v. Dir. of Revenue, 77 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. 2002). · cites it 8× “In contrast, under section 577.041, the licensee may not contest the revocation solely on the ground that he was not driving.”

Murphy v. Dir. of Revenue, 170 S.W.3d 507 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 28× “2003) (holding, “the clause, ‘none shall be given,’ in the refusal provision of the Implied Consent Law, Section 577.041 RSMo (Supp.2002), prohibits war-rantless tests authorized by law enforcement officers pursuant to Chapter 577, but does not prohibit a court from issuing a…”

Garriott v. Dir. of Revenue, 130 S.W.3d 613 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 34× “Garriott’s driver’s license pursuant to section 577.041, 1 for refusing to submit to a breath analysis test.”

Jereme Roesing v. Dir. of Revenue, State of Missouri, 573 S.W.3d 634 (Mo. 2019). · cites it 10× “Because law enforcement deprived Roesing of his right to confer privately with his attorney, and the director failed to show that Roesing was not prejudiced, his refusal to consent to the chemical test was not voluntary and unequivocal under section 577.041. The circuit court…”

Romans v. Dir. of Revenue, 783 S.W.2d 894 (Mo. 1990). · cites it 19× “On January 18, 1989, two hundred three days after the notice of revocation was sent and one hundred seventy three days after Section 302.311 permits the filing of an appeal from the revocation, Romans filed his petition to review the revocation.”

State v. Smith, 134 S.W.3d 35 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 13× “We hold that the clause, “none shall be given,” in the refusal provision of the Implied Consent Law, Section 577.041 RSMo (Supp.2002), prohibits war-rantless tests authorized by law enforcement officers pursuant to Chapter 577, but does not prohibit a court from issuing a search…”

Baldridge v. Dir. of Revenue, 82 S.W.3d 212 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 12× “Baldridge was not provided a copy of the surveillance videotape was beyond the scope of the trial *215 judge’s authority under § 577.041, RSMo 2000, 1 to review license revocations for refusal to submit to a chemical test.”

McMaster v. Lohman, 941 S.W.2d 813 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 15× “McMaster’s license was revoked under section 577.041, RSMo 1994, for failure to submit to a chemical test as required by the Implied Consent Law.”

Brown v. Dir. of Revenue, 164 S.W.3d 121 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 13× “Brown, after judicial review of the revocation based on his refusal to submit to a chemical test under section 577.041 RSMo (2000). 1 We reverse and remand.”

Show all 470 citing cases →

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.041(1) — 3 cases

Glastetter v. Dir. of Revenue, 37 S.W.3d 405 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

Burleson v. Dir. of Revenue, State of Mo, 92 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Doughty v. Dir. of Revenue, 387 S.W.3d 383 (Mo. 2013).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.041(2) — 1 case

Kinsman v. Dir. of Revenue, 58 S.W.3d 27 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.041(3) — 1 case

Sprouse v. Dir. of Revenue, 839 S.W.2d 627 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 577.041(4) — 3 cases

Burleson v. Dir. of Revenue, State of Mo, 92 S.W.3d 218 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Christensen v. Dir. of Revenue, 128 S.W.3d 171 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

Smock v. Dir. of Revenue, State of Mo., 128 S.W.3d 643 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).

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.