High court lets stand decision on DWI warrants

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The Missouri Supreme Court has let stand a lower court's ruling upholding the authority of police to use search warrants to forcibly obtain physical evidence from drunken driving suspects.

On May 12, the high court heard arguments in the case, which was brought by a Jackson woman charged with DWI. Instead of issuing an opinion, it remanded the matter to the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District in St. Louis in an unsigned order issued Tuesday.

The eastern district court had earlier ruled police may use search warrants to gather evidence of intoxication in DWI cases. That court has the authority to issue a new decision, but in instances where the Supreme Court returns a case without an opinion, the appeals court typically reissues its original ruling.

Cape Girardeau County Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle said the high court's decision to let the appeals court ruling stand is a victory in the battle against drunken drivers.

"If it had gone the other way, there would have been somebody who got away with killing someone while driving drunk before the legislature had the chance to fix the law," Swingle said.

At issue was Missouri's "implied consent" law, under which motorists are deemed to have consented to providing breath, blood or other physical samples to determine if they are under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If a motorist refuses to cooperate, he or she faces an automatic one-year revocation of driving privileges.

Carol Sue Smith was arrested and charged with DWI on Aug. 12, 2002. After she refused to submit to a Breathalyzer test, a Cape Girardeau County deputy executed a search warrant signed by a judge authorizing the collection of a blood sample.

Smith sought to keep that evidence from being used against her at trial, citing a provision of the implied consent law that says if driver refuses to submit to a test then "none shall be given."

Associate Circuit Judge Michael Bullerdieck cited that phrase in excluding the blood test evidence, prompting Swingle to appeal. After the appeals court reversed Bullerdieck, Smith appealed to the Supreme Court.

Swingle argued the state legislature intended to make it easier to prosecute drunken driving suspects in passing the implied consent law, not provide an impediment to the gathering of evidence. Smith's attorney, Stephen Wilson of Cape Girardeau, countered that the plain language of the statute means what it says.

If the eastern district court reissues its decision as expected, Swingle plans to proceed with his prosecution of Smith.

The case is State of Missouri v. Carol Sue Smith.

mpowers@semissourian.com

(573) 635-4608