Appellate court rejects Democratic power broker's request for rehearing on driver's license revocation

Case.net documents indicate the Missouri Southern District Court of Appeals has rejected former State Representative Kathleen Steele Danner's request for a rehearing on its decision to order a lower court to revoke her driver's license.

Ms. Steele-Danner, who last month threw a fancy $50 per plate fund raiser at her Branson home for Attorney General Jay Nixon's gubernatorial campaign, is appealing the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. Ms. Steele-Danner, a longtime Democratic power broker, managed Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in Missouri in 1992, and was rewarded with an appointment as regional director for the federal Department of Health and Human Services in Kansas City.

In its decision, issued March 13, the appellate court said Judge Tony Williams was wrong when he restored Kathleen Steele-Danner's driving privileges after she refused to take a breathalyzer test following a traffic stop. Judging by information from the opinion, it is obvious Judge Williams tossed out a DWI charge against Ms. Danner-Steele.

According to the decision, "Kathleen Steele-Danner was stopped by Officer Shawn Teitsort for speeding. The officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol on her breath. When asked how much she had to drink, she stated she had one glass of wine. (She) was asked to perform field sobriety tests and was subsequently arrested for driving while intoxicated.
"After arriving at the Branson Police Department and reading Missouri's Implied Consent law to (Ms. Steele-Danner) Officer Teitsort requested that the respondent submit to a breath test. She refused and her license was revoked."

The decision came down to whether Teitsort had reason to believe she was driving drunk:


Respondent had to steady herself using the car door when exiting her vehicle. He observed her swaying as she walked. Her eyes appeared bloodshot and "staring." She continued to sway during the horizontal gaze nystagmus test ("HGN") and the officer noted a lack of "smooth pursuit" in both eyes and a distinct nystagmus at maximum deviation, with an onset prior to forty-five degrees, indicating intoxication.
When Respondent performed the walk-and-turn test, she did not take the correct number of steps, used her arms for balance and did not make a proper turn. Because she stepped off of the line three times, the officer deemed her unable to complete the test. Likewise, she put her foot down three or more times on the one-leg stand test and was unable to complete the test. Based upon his training, experience, and observations, Officer Teitsort testified that he formed the opinion that Respondent was intoxicated and placed her under arrest for driving while intoxicated. On the issue of the officer's credibility, as the Director points out, the trial court put its stamp of approval on Officer Teitsort by indicating, "I believe [Officer Teitsort] administered the tests properly. In fact, that officer is one of the finest."


Judge Williams based his decision on Teitsort's comments during cross examination that he thought Ms. Steele-Danner was "borderline" and might not fail the breathalyzer test:


[Defense Counsel]: Okay. And you were surprised she didn't take the test?
[Officer]: Yes, sir.
[Defense counsel]: Because you thought she might not have been above a .08?
[Officer]: I believed she was borderline. That's correct.
[Defense Counsel]: Okay. You thought she might not have been above .08?
[Officer]: That's correct.


The appellate court gave the following summary of the case:

Respondent was stopped at 1:38 a.m. for speeding fourteen miles per hour over the speed limit. She had a strong odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes, had trouble with balance and walking, and was uncertain in her turning. Respondent was unable to follow directions for the walk-and-turn test and admitted to drinking alcohol earlier during the evening. The trial court misapplied the law when it found Officer Teitsort's testimony that he was surprised when Respondent refused to take the test because the officer thought Respondent was borderline -- that there was a possibility she would pass the test -- negated the probable cause determination that she was driving her vehicle while in an intoxicated condition. In so doing, the trial court disregarded Officer Teitsort's objective and credible observation of Respondent's unusual and illegal motor vehicle operation and indicia of intoxication from field sobriety tests, which objectively constitute probable cause.


The decision was 2-1, with the dissenting judge agreeing that the case should be returned to Judge Williams, but only to determine if the officer had properly administered the field tests to give him probable cause.