OTT LAW

MICHAEL S. CARNEY, Petitioner-Respondent vs. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent-Appellant

Decision date: April 5, 2011SD30625

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

MICHAEL S. CARNEY, ) ) Petitioner-Respondent, ) ) v. ) No. SD30625 ) Filed: 5-23-11 DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, ) ) Respondent-Appellant. )

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CAMDEN COUNTY Honorable Bruce E. Colyer, Associate Circuit Judge REVERSED AND REMANDED The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals from a judgment reinstating the driving privileges of Michael Carney (Carney). At trial, the court excluded the breath test results and Datamaster maintenance records because the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) had failed to adopt necessary rules and regulations to run the Breath Alcohol Program. The Director contends the trial court's exclusion of this evidence resulted from a misapplication of the law. We agree. The judgment reinstating Carney's driving privileges is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

2

Carney was stopped for speeding on July 17, 2009 by the Highway Patrol. The trooper noted that Carney had bloodshot eyes and smelled strongly of alcohol. He performed poorly on field sobriety tests, and the portable breath test was positive for alcohol. Carney was arrested for driving while intoxicated and taken to the county jail. The trooper administered a breath alcohol test using a Datamaster machine. He completed the Datamaster checklist and certified that he administered the test according to the rules promulgated by the Department of Health and Senior Services. Carney had a .113 blood alcohol level. Carney was charged with driving while intoxicated and issued a notice of suspension. Following an administrative hearing, Carney filed a petition for trial de novo in the Circuit Court of Camden County pursuant to § 302.535 RSMo Cum. Supp. (2009). The trial court excluded the breath test results and Datamaster maintenance records because MoDOT had failed to adopt the necessary rules and regulations to carry out its duties in administering the Breath Alcohol Program. The court entered a judgment reinstating Carney's driving privileges. This appeal followed. The Director presents three points, but we need address only one. In Point I, the Director contends the trial court erred by excluding the breath test results and Datamaster maintenance records. The Director argues that the exclusion of this evidence resulted from the trial court's misapplication of the law. We agree. The trial court's evidentiary ruling was based upon the legal conclusion that MoDOT became responsible for promulgating rules and regulations to administer the Breath Alcohol Program after Executive Order 07-05 was signed by then-Governor Matt Blunt in January 2007. For the reasons explained in Schneider v. Director of Revenue,

3

No. ED94608 (Mo. App. filed April 5, 2011) and State v. Ross, No. WD71872 (Mo. App. filed May 17, 2011), the trial court's legal conclusion was in error. Because the trial court relied upon that erroneous legal conclusion to exclude relevant evidence at the trial de novo, the trial court misapplied the law to the Director's prejudice. See Griggs v. Department of Revenue, No. SD30875 (Mo. App. filed May 20, 2011). Point I is granted. Our holding renders Points II and III moot. The judgment reinstating Carney's driving privileges is reversed. The cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1

Jeffrey W. Bates, Judge RAHMEYER, P.J. – Concurs FRANCIS, J. – Concurs

Attorney for Appellant: Trevor Bossert of Jefferson City, MO Attorney for Respondent: Carl M. Ward of Washington, MO

1 Our opinion only addresses the specific reason given by the trial court for excluding the blood alcohol test results during the trial de novo. If Carney has another ground for objecting to the admission of this evidence, the trial court will have the opportunity to address the issue on remand.

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