William Washington, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court. Opinion Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District Case Style: William Washington, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Defendant/Respondent. Case Number: 72207 Handdown Date: 01/27/1998 Appeal From: Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Hon. Henry E. Autrey Counsel for Appellant: Robert S. Adler Counsel for Respondent: James A. Chenault, III Opinion Summary: None Citation: Opinion Author: Per Curiam Opinion Vote: AFFIRMED. Grimm, P.J., Pudlowski and Gaertner, J.J. Opinion: ORDER This is an appeal of the Director of Revenue's suspension of a driver's automobile driving privileges. Driver appeals raising two points. His first point claims the trial court erred in admitting the breathalyser test result because police officer took an unapproved sample reading by using a "sample control override" switch. His second point claims the trial court erred in admitting the breathalyser test results because Director failed to establish the test machine's standard simulator solution complied with CSR provisions. We affirm. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Separate Opinion: None

This slip opinion is subject to revision and may not reflect the final opinion adopted by the Court.