Case Name: William WASHINGTON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1998-01-27
Citations: 959 S.W.2d 943
Docket Number: No. 72207
Parties: William WASHINGTON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Respondent.
Judges: Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 959
Pages: 943–943

Head Matter:
William WASHINGTON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant/Respondent.
No. 72207.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
Jan. 27, 1998.
Robert S. Adler, St. Louis, for plaintiff/appellant.
Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for defendant/respondent.
Before GRIMM, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal of the Director of Revenue's suspension of a driver's automobile driving privileges. Driver appeals raising two points. His first point claims the trial court erred in admitting the breathalyser test result because police officer took an unapproved sample reading by using a "sample control override" switch. His second point claims the trial court erred in admitting the breathalyser test results because Director failed to establish the test machine's standard simulator solution complied with CSR provisions. We affirm.
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).