Background
Witnesses reported seeing Jeremiah Johnson’s car weaving, nearly striking another vehicle, stopping abruptly, and ultimately turning into a snow-packed ditch. Responding officers found Johnson standing beside the car. He was slow to respond to directions and questions, became argumentative and uncooperative, and exhibited glassy and watery eyes, bloodshot cheeks, and a strong odor of intoxicants. Lieutenant Phillip Salmon arrested him for driving while intoxicated.
At the police station, Officer Andrew Lockhart read Johnson Missouri’s implied-consent warning. Johnson refused a breath test and asked to speak with an attorney. Lockhart immediately gave him that opportunity, and Johnson successfully contacted counsel. Thirteen minutes after the initial warning, Lockhart returned and, after confirming the contact, reread the warning. Johnson again refused testing. The circuit court sustained the resulting one-year revocation of Johnson’s driving privilege.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that rereading the implied-consent warning did not restart the statutory twenty-minute period for attempting to contact an attorney. The purpose of that period is to permit an informed decision after the driver learns the consequences of refusing testing. Johnson received that opportunity after the first warning and successfully contacted counsel; the second reading did not entitle him to another twenty minutes.
The court also held that substantial evidence supported the finding that Lieutenant Salmon had reasonable grounds, equivalent to probable cause, to believe Johnson had driven while intoxicated. An arresting officer need not personally observe the driving, ask the suspect whether he drove, or administer field sobriety tests. Salmon could rely on the eyewitness report, the car’s location in the ditch, Johnson’s behavior and delayed responses, and his physical signs of intoxication.
Key Takeaways
- Rereading Missouri’s implied-consent warning does not automatically trigger a second twenty-minute period to attempt to contact counsel.
- An officer may establish probable cause for driving while intoxicated through eyewitness information and circumstantial evidence without personally seeing the suspect drive.
- A vehicle leaving the road, combined with an odor of intoxicants, glassy and watery eyes, delayed responses, and uncooperative conduct, supplied substantial evidence supporting probable cause.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that Missouri’s statutory opportunity to contact counsel is tied to enabling an informed testing decision, not to every repetition of the implied-consent warning. Once a driver has received the warning and successfully contacted an attorney without indicating that the consultation was incomplete, an officer may request a decision before twenty minutes have elapsed and need not restart the period merely because the warning is repeated.
The opinion also reinforces the breadth of information that may support probable cause in refusal-revocation proceedings. Eyewitness reports relayed to police, accident circumstances, observed behavior, and physical signs of intoxication can collectively establish reasonable grounds even when the arresting officer neither witnesses the driving nor performs field sobriety testing.