Effective 01 Jan 2017, see footnote

577.041. Refusal to submit to chemical test — admissibility — request to include reasons and effect of refusal. — 1. If a person under arrest, or who has been detained pursuant to subdivision (2) of subsection 1 of section 577.020, or stopped pursuant to subdivision (3) or (4) of subsection 1 of section 577.020, refuses upon the request of the officer to submit to any test allowed pursuant to section 577.020, then evidence of the refusal shall be admissible in any proceeding related to the acts resulting in such detention, stop, or arrest.

2. The request of the officer to submit to any chemical test shall include the reasons of the officer for requesting the person to submit to a test and also shall inform the person that evidence of refusal to take the test may be used against such person. If such person was operating a vehicle prior to such detention, stop, or arrest, he or she shall further be informed that his or her license shall be immediately revoked upon refusal to take the test.

3. If a person when requested to submit to any test allowed pursuant to section 577.020 requests to speak to an attorney, the person shall be granted twenty minutes in which to attempt to contact an attorney. If, upon the completion of the twenty-minute period the person continues to refuse to submit to any test, it shall be deemed a refusal.

­­--------

(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.).