Ott Law Firm Agent-Safe Plain Text
Official source remains authoritative.

Case: William Washington, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Director of Revenue, State of Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District
Decision Date: Unknown
Outcome: affirmed
Practice Area: criminal-law
Canonical URL: https://ott.law/missouri-courts/opinions/william-washington-plaintiffappellant-v-director-of-revenue-state-of-miss-12794
Official Source URL: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=12794
Related Practice Areas:
- Criminal Law: https://ott.law/practice-areas/criminal-law?ott_archive=missouri-courts&ott_archive_practice_area=criminal-law&ott_archive_query=William+Washington%2C+Plaintiff%2FAppellant%2C+v.+Director+of+Revenue%2C+State+of+Missouri%2C+Defendant%2FRespondent.&ott_archive_link_source=tag&ott_archive_link_score=24&ott_archive_link_evidence=tag%3A+criminal-law%3B+text%3A+state+of+missouri&ott_archive_location=opinion_plain_text_practice_area (slug: criminal-law; source: tag; score: 24; evidence: tag: criminal-law, text: state of missouri)

---
## Opinion

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.