Mahoney v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE

Missouri Court of Appeals

Mahoney v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE

295 S.W.3d 602, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1624, 2009 WL 3849665

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 27, 2009

DocketWD 70703

StatusPublished

This text of 295 S.W.3d 602 (Mahoney v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mahoney v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE, 295 S.W.3d 602, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1624, 2009 WL 3849665 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Following a hearing pursuant to § 577.041 RSMo, the circuit court entered a judgment upholding the Director of Revenue’s revocation of Appellant Shane P. Mahoney’s driving privileges based on Ma-honey’s refusal to submit to a chemical test of his blood-alcohol content. On appeal, Mahoney argues that the Director failed to prove that, prior to his arrest, the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to suspect that Mahoney was driving while intoxicated. He also argues that § 577.041 violates the United States and Missouri Constitutions. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Following a hearing pursuant to § 577.041 RSMo, the circuit court entered a judgment upholding the Director of Revenue’s revocation of Appellant Shane P. Mahoney’s driving privileges based on Ma-honey’s refusal to submit to a chemical test of his blood-alcohol content. On appeal, Mahoney argues that the Director failed to prove that, prior to his arrest, the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to suspect that Mahoney was driving while intoxicated. He also argues that § 577.041 violates the United States and Missouri Constitutions. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 S.W.3d 602, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1624, 2009 WL 3849665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahoney-v-director-of-revenue-state-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack