OTT LAW

John P. Streicher, Respondent, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Appellant.

Decision date: January 27, 2009ED91050

Slip Opinion Notice

This archive contains Missouri appellate slip opinions reproduced for research convenience, not the final official reporter version. Official source links remain authoritative where provided. Joseph Ott, Attorney 67889, Ott Law Firm - Constant Victory - Personal Injury and Litigation maintains these public legal archives to support Missouri case research and to help prospective clients connect that research to the firm's courtroom practice.

Opinion

JOHN P. STREICHER, ) ) ED91050 Petitioner/Respondent, ) ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of v. ) St. Charles County ) DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, ) STATE OF MISSOURI, ) Honorable Matthew E.P. Thornhill ) Respondent/Appellant. ) Filed: January 27, 2009

The Director of Revenue appeals the trial court's judgment reinstating John P. Streicher's driving privileges after the Director suspended them pursuant to section 302.505 RSMo 2000. 1 The trial court found that the Director's evidence failed to show the police officer had probable cause to arrest Streicher for driving while intoxicated. We reverse and remand with instructions. In May 2007, a St. Charles County police officer arrested Streicher for driving while intoxicated after the officer responded to an automobile collision on Highway 94 involving Streicher and two other vehicles. Streicher admitted to falling asleep while driving and striking the other vehicles. The officer smelled alcohol on Streicher's breath and observed that his eyes were bloodshot and glassy. Streicher admitted that he had been drinking and consented to a portable breath test, which showed positive for the

1 All further statutory references are to RSMo 2000, unless otherwise stated.

presence of alcohol. Streicher was then placed under arrest for driving while intoxicated. At the station, the officer administered another breath analysis test which revealed a blood alcohol content of .102 percent. Streicher's license was subsequently suspended pursuant to section 302.505. After an administrative law judge upheld the suspension, Streicher filed a petition for trial de novo in St. Charles County circuit court, and the trial court reinstated his driving privileges. This appeal follows. At trial, the court admitted an exhibit that included inter alia a four-page alcohol influence report, the officer's narrative report, a breath test ticket, a maintenance report, and a certificate of analysis. Streicher stipulated to the officer's credibility and the accuracy of his report included in the Director's exhibit. Streicher submitted no evidence and no witnesses testified. The trial court found that the police officer did not have probable cause to arrest Streicher for driving while intoxicated and ordered reinstatement of Streicher's license. The Director appeals, claiming trial court error in reinstating Streicher's driver's license because the evidence established that the officer had probable cause to arrest Streicher for driving while intoxicated. The Director contends that the trial court misapplied the law in holding that the officer's failure to perform field sobriety tests and the officer's lack of explanation as to why these tests were not performed contributed to the lack of probable cause. This Court's review of the trial court's judgment reinstating Streicher's license, after it had been administratively suspended under section 302.505 for DWI, is the same as in any other judge-tried case and is governed by Murphy v. Carron . 2 Smith v. Director of Revenue, 13 S.W.3d 700, 704-05 (Mo.App. W.D. 2000). The trial court's judgment

2 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976).

2

3 will be affirmed unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Id. In determining whether probable cause existed at the time of arrest, the trial court views the facts as they "would have appeared to a prudent, cautious, and trained police officer." Hopkins-Barken v. Director of Revenue , 55 S.W.3d 882, 885 (Mo.App. E.D. 2001). Moreover, field sobriety tests are not mandatory to determine probable cause. Brown v. Director of Revenue , 85 S.W.3d 1, 6 (Mo. banc 2002). Based on our standard of review, we find that the trial court's judgment was against the weight of the evidence. There is uncontroverted evidence from which the police officer could find probable cause to believe that Streicher was intoxicated. We reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to enter a judgment reinstating the suspension of Streicher's driving privileges.

_____________________________________ Booker T. Shaw, Presiding Judge

Kathianne Knaup Crane, J. and Mary K. Hoff, J., concur.

Related Opinions

Ronald Wuebbeling, Respondent, vs. Jill Clark, f/k/a Jill Wuebbeling, Appellant.(2016)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictAugust 9, 2106#ED103501

affirmed
family-lawmajority5,654 words

L.J.F. vs. J.F.G.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictMarch 10, 2026#WD87987

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's renewal of a full order of protection against Father, which was made effective for his lifetime. The order prohibits Father from communicating with or coming within 100 feet of Mother, except for communications concerning their shared child, based on findings that Father engaged in stalking, harassment, and coercion that posed a serious danger to Mother's physical or mental health.

family-lawper_curiam4,882 words

In re the Marriage of: Stacey L. Noble vs. Bradford R. Noble(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western DistrictFebruary 24, 2026#WD87485

affirmed

Wife appealed the trial court's dissolution judgment, challenging the court's failure to provide a remedy after independent investigation of facts, the use of normalized income to determine husband's maintenance obligation, and the finding that husband lacked ability to pay maintenance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects.

family-lawmajority8,056 words

In re the matter of: A.L.P. and S.H.P., minors; Alicia Smith, Respondent, vs. Lora Martinez, Appellant.(2026)

Supreme Court of MissouriFebruary 24, 2026#SC101121

reversed

The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's grant of third-party visitation to Smith under section 452.375.5(5)(a), holding that this statute does not create an independent cause of action for third-party visitation when custody is not at issue. The court determined that Smith lacked standing to seek visitation rights after Martinez was granted full parental rights through adoption.

family-lawper_curiam3,296 words

M.D.M, Appellant, v. A.W.S., Respondent.(2026)

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern DistrictFebruary 10, 2026#ED113141

affirmed

The court affirmed the circuit court's child custody and support judgment, rejecting Father's six points of error regarding the Form 14 calculations, denial of Line 11 credit despite equal visitation time, disproportionate attorney's and GAL fees, and exclusion of testimony on equitable abatement. The appellate court found that Father failed to meet the required analytical standards for challenging the judgment and that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying the Line 11 credit and ruling against equitable abatement.

family-lawmajority3,425 words