­­--------

(L. 1982 S.B. 513, A.L. 1987 S.B. 230, A.L. 1991 S.B. 125 & 341, A.L. 1993 S.B. 167 merged with S.B. 180, A.L. 1996 H.B. 1169 & 1271 merged with S.B. 722, A.L. 1998 S.B. 634, A.L. 2001 H.B. 302 & 38, A.L. 2002 H.B. 2062, A.L. 2003 H.B. 600, A.L. 2005 H.B. 353 merged with H.B. 487, A.L. 2008 S.B. 930 & 947, A.L. 2010 H.B. 1695, et al., A.L. 2013 S.B. 23, A.L. 2014 S.B. 491, A.L. 2014 H.B. 1371)

Effective 1-01-17

(1988) Person may have limited right to consult with counsel prior to taking test, but there is no right to have an attorney present during test or to condition taking of test on presence of attorney. Kilpatrick v. Director of Revenue, 756 S.W.2d 214 (Mo.App.E.D.).

(1989) It is not a denial of equal protection when statute requires director of revenue to revoke driver's license for refusing to take chemical tests and then revoke driver's license for accumulation of points without a showing that all similarly situated drivers were not treated equally. (Mo.App.W.D.) Brown v. Director of Revenue, 772 S.W.2d 398)

(2010) Twenty-minute waiting period begins running immediately after the officer has informed the driver of the implied consent law, regardless of whether the driver requested an attorney before or after the information was provided.  Norris v. Director of Revenue, 304 S.W.3d 724 (Mo. en banc).

(2019) Motorist's refusal to consent to chemical test was not voluntary and unequivocal under section, where law enforcement officer deprived him of the right to confer privately with his attorney and where the Director of Revenue failed to show that he was not prejudiced by the action.  Roesing v. Director of Revenue, 573 S.W.3d 634 (Mo.).