Case Review- DWI - Not Enough Evidence

On March 20, 2005 the respondent in Fick v. Director of Revenue was involved in a single-vehicle crash.  A trooper came to the site and saw the respondent being treated by medical attendants.  The trooper walked over to the respondent, who had an oxygen mask and neck collar on, and smelled a moderate odor of alcohol on the respondent.  The respondent admitted to having a few beers so the trooper administered a partial horizontal gaze nystagmus test on the respondent's left eye.  The trooper noticed a lack of smooth pursuit and nystagmus at maximum deviation.  The trooper was not able to perform the test on the right eye or any other physical tests due to the medical treatment the respondent was receiving.  The respondent was placed under arrest by the trooper and was asked to submit to a blood test.  The respondent refused.  The trooper did not give the respondent the written notice that his driving privileges were revoked for one year but sent the notice to the Department of Revenue with instruction to mail it to the respondent.  The Director revoked the respondent's driver's license for refusing to submit to the blood test.  The respondent requested a hearing before the trial court wherein the trial court ruled in favor of the respondent and ordered to Director to reinstate the respondent's driver's license.  The Director appealed to the appellate court on the grounds that uncontroverted evidence was presented that the respondent had been driving while intoxicated.    The appellate court ruled that at the trial court hearing the Director had to prove by  a preponderance of the evidence all of the following elements:

1. the driver was arrested;
2. the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe the driver was driving while intoxicated; and
3. the driver refused to submit to a test as authorized by section 577.020 to determine the amount of alcohol in the blood.

If any one of the three elements are found in the negative, the trial court must order reinstatement of the driving privileges.  Based upon the rulings in York v. Director of Revenue, 186 S.W.3d 267 (Mo. banc 2006) and Guhr v. Director of Revenue, WD657621, (Mo. App. W.D. 08/26/2006), now on transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court, the trial court is free to disregard any and all of the Director's evidence, even if it is uncontroverted, and if the appellate court finds that one or more of the elements could be found in the negative, it must affirm the trial court's ruling.  Here, the trial court found all three elements to be in the negative and  based this decision on the following:  the trooper gave the gaze nystagmus test wherein the respondent failed 2 0f the 3 parts and did not complete the test with the right eye or conduct any other physical tests, the trooper testified that he did not remember any other person being arrested for driving while intoxicated under such limited testing, the "field of debris" did not show clear evidence  of alcohol consumption, and there were no alphabet or other mental dexterity testing conducted. The trial court found that there were not enough grounds to conclude that the respondent was driving while intoxicated based upon this evidence.  The appellate court determined that the evidence could be interpreted this way so it affirmed the trial court's ruling against the Director.