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 She refused and her license was revoked."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.
9 comments:
If she was drunk, she needs to walk. I don't want to meet a drunk driver on the road, makes no difference if she was a Democrat or Republican. WALK baby! you'll have plenty of time to think about it then.
I ran this story without the spin in the Taney County Times. I've talked with the Judge, Attorneys and reviewed some of the facts...Let me help.
1. Williams is a hardcore Republican
2. The cop was a total jackass. Was she drunk? Then why the hell did she say she wasn't? Williams can be controversial in court, but, he rules from what he believes is right. The cop switch hit on the topic "Was she drunk." The judges ruling was correct. He was nice to the cop (bad idea) in the ruling. This is why it was overturned. Look at the facts. The cop changed his stance. The Department of Revenue took advantage of this, as they do - to strengthen their power. The attorney for Steele knew it. He wanted the judge to change the statement Williams has had 3 cases overturned similar in nature. Attorneys use to tell clients (until this year) to not take the test when asked. She was following the advice she was given ... case law changes.
"The cop was a total jackass."
Sometimes I think that is one of the qualifications on the job application. Seems most of them don't hang around Branson long.
Unfortunately, a $50 a plate fundraiser is not considered "fancy" in today's politics. Try a $1000 at a minimum for "fancy".
I am a little curious why her political history (including recent donation dinners) is so important to include in this little report. Is it that Randy's so fond of that hammer that everything looks like a nail?
(And yes, Tony Williams is a Republican. Don't know anything about the politics of the appellate court or the Supreme Court, but thus far the Democratic power broker angle just doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.)
You're looking at the wrong angle. This is not about Democrats and Republicans. The Democratic power broker is simply who she is. This is a case of the powerful playing by their own rules. I have read the negative comments concerning the arresting officer in the case, but Ms. Steele-Danner refused to submit to a breathalyzer test...and this is the second time she has done that. This is being written about because it appears to be a case of the powerful who can hire top-drawer lawyers being treated differently than the average citizen. That should always be a story.
$50. is considered fancy if you live and work for wages in the Branson area. Hourly workers here are suppose to be peasants to wait on the wealthy. Poverty is so far fetched from the minds of the rich, they have an annual meeting to try to enlighten the wealthy how it is to live in poverty. All they need to do is go to WalMart, look at the numbers of workers with bad teeth, cars just barely able to get them to work, worn out shoes. It goes on and on, and its not just WalMart workers, its all over town. Most people here work two jobs and many work three.
However, those folks got that way because they just weren't quite as bright as the wealthy.
I wouldn't consider paying $50 for a meal.
On the poor aren't as bright as the wealthy comment. That's not entirely correct. The wealthy have access to that necessary wealth building item know as capital. George Bush Jr. is a classic example of the advantage wealth can give people. If you don't start out with capital, you're limited unless you're someone like Bill Gates. ...I don't know if you've noticed, but there aren't a lot of "Bill Gates" running around.
Far be it from me to defend a Democrat but I do not see where she got any special treatment. You yourself Randy have complained in the past that Judge Copeland has “a soft spot in his heart for drunk drivers” and makes similar rulings all the time (and on occasion he gets overturned).
If someone gets stopped and they refuse to blow they have thirty days to appeal the implied consent revocation in circuit court. The cost to do this is not astronomical (I charge $500 plus the filing fee and the most I have heard from other attorneys is $1,000.00). So, it is fairly affordable to challenge the revocation but the odds of winning are generally stacked against the accused.
What makes you think this person got special treatment? Has this judge never ruled in favor of any other driver?
Post a Comment