Under Section 302.302.(7), RSMo Cum. . 1961, 12 points may be assessed only in those cases where an individual has been convicted of driving under influence of intoxicating liquors in violation of Sections 564.420, 564.430 and 564.440, RSMo 1959.

POINT SYSTEM: Under Section 302. 302.(7 ) 1 RSMo Cum. Supp. 19611 12 pointe may be assessed onl y 1n those cases where an ~d1vidual has been convicted of driving under influence of intoxicating l i quor s in viol ation of Sections 564. 420, 564. 430 and 564.440, RSMo 1959. DRIVER I S LICENSE : DRIVING WHILE INTOXICATED: FELONY: CRIMINAL LAW MOTOR VEHICLES: June 14, 1963 Honorabl e John K. Ieopa%'<1 ProaooutinG Attorney Davieaa County Oo.llatin, Misaouri Dear Mr. Leopardt OPINION NO . 10 Fl LED 'l'his ia 1n repl y to yo\U' opinion request in which J'OU atatea •x have been requested by the Maeistrate o~ thia county to write to your ot~ice tor an op1n1on eonceming tho interpretation ot Section 302 .. 302 (1) (7), laws 1961. 'l'hia aeetion requires t he aaesamont ot pointe after conviction• o~ tr&ttio violations, and tho applicabl e part reaaa aa tollowa t " 1 (1 ) Dr1 v1nS under tho intl uonoo ot intoxicating l iquor or narcotic druga In viol at ion ot at ate l aw ••••• l 2 points • r'The epecifio queation on which tho op~on is reqaeated ie aa tollows a Whether or not auoh prortaion requirea a conviction o~ a tol on7 under Section 564.440 before 12 point a ~ be aascoaed, or vhother or not &\lob 12 pointe may be aa~eaaed on a conv1!t1on ot oarel eaa and imprudent drivinG or on a conviction ot any other mov1ng trattio wiol4tion whore the ovidenee ahowa the defendant to have been dri. v1ng under the 1n.tl uence ot in- toxicatinG liquor. "Section 302.302. aupra, requ1rea that the de~endant be dr1 ving ' under tho 1.ntl ucnce Honorable John K. Leopard • 2 of intox1catinc l iQuor, • while Seation 564.440 requj.res that the defendant be operating a motor ve~icle 1wh1l e in an intoxicated oond1t1on.• It would appear that a person could be 'under the 1nf1u- ence • and yet not be 11n an intoXicated condition, ' and that is the reason .Uy your opinion is requested. u Section 302 .302, RSMo 1961 Cumulative SUpplement, states in parte 111 . The director of revenue shall put into effect a point system Cor th suspension and revocation ot chauffeur.a• and operators ' 11oenses. Points shall be assessed only after a conviction or rorfei ture of coll ateral . The 1n1 t1al point value 1a aa foll ows: * • * • * • * • • " (7) Driving under the infl uence ot intoxicating liquor or narcotic drL~a In violation of state law •• • • l2 pointe In violation of a county or municipal ordj.nance ••••••• ••••••••••••• 6 points". This section apeoit1cally provides that twelve points be assessed for the viol ation of state law w1d a1x points for the violation of a county or municipal ordinance of driving under the infl uence of intoXicating l iquor. Section 302.302 does not create a new criminal offense but designates points to be assessed for violati ons of other statutes. The l anguage of this section cl early indicates that the l egislature intended these respective points to be asseaaed upon conviction of a particular offenae, to-Witt dri~ing a vehicle whil e under the influence of intoxieating liqu_or. The only state statutes regarding this particular type of ottenae to be found 1n the Missouri statutes are Sections 564. 420, 564 . J~30, and 564.44o, RSMo 1959, which atatet 564.420 - uEvery person who, whilst actuall y employed 1n driving any stage, Honorable Jobn K. Leopar« • 3 coach, wason, omnibu$, hack o~ othe~ v~hiele, shall be 1nto~cated to eueh a degree as to en~ell' thtl ~ty ot any person the~in, shall be deemed guilt~ of a m1~de.~ean9r1 and aball upon oqnv:t et~on be pun1shed ~J t~e not lesa than twenty n-o:r more than one hw'ld:NH~ dolle.JtG,." .564,.430 .. *'Eve:tu pereon Who, whilst actua~ly employed in disQnarsing th~ duttee ot a pilot or engtnee~ on any atean1boat1 or or an ensineer Ol" QCYJ"l6ucto~ on any ttailroad enGine,. ear er t~in of ears, or of' a m.otomtan o~ condao~or an any e1eetclc oar or car moved or prop.e-11~4 by ;my otner powell, shall b~ 1nto%ioated, t:~~ll:. upon eonvtctton, be pun1$hed by 1mpr1eon• men-t 1n the penitentiaey not e~~ee41ng th~e ve:arrs or :l.n the oou.nty . Jaj_l not exoeedi~ one :real'1 or by tine not exceeding Me. thou.,and dollars .. 11 ~6lt.. 440 • " No pe~aon 4ball o~erat€ a.. moto_r v-ebiol~ while in an intoXicated oond1 t1on~ or when unde:r the 1nf1uenee of 4~8. 0 A re\'iew ot ~e~t1on 302 .• 3Qa, itSMo 1961 Cumulat! ve Suppl~ent6 discloses that ~ le01t1at~ en~Pated the pointe to be assessed b1 'he t>1~ctol' of a~ venue -sainat an indiVidual drive~ who luld been convioted ot certain ape~1f1o o£~aes. ~-u~ ot ~he apeoi.f!cU. tt ol the ott en•~• l1ated tn said eection~ and tne ~act that the section 41tfe~ntiated in the amount ot poj.nts to be a$aeaeed to~ a conviction ot state an<l county or munJ.ciHl violatione of the particular c1'f'?'l'l f:'A, ot u4riv1ne unde-r tne 1ntluenc.e ot intenoat.tng li-quor or narcot1o druga# n the legislat~ mu•t neoeaaartly have had lln m1na the eonv1~t1ona under SOotiona 564.4ao, 564.4)0 or 564.440, RSMb 1959. 1n a4d1 tlQn, autnora t ;v ia to be to una wh1cll provides that the phrase "under tbe 1nt11.1enee of intoX1oat1ng liquol'n and "in an intoxicated cond1 tlon,. are a~bvtant1ally aynony• mous. Honorabl e John g. Leopard • 4 In State v . Dudley, 159 La. 879, 106 So . 364, the Louil>iana court, 1n hol ding that the te1-m .. under t he in- fluence of intoxicat ing l i quor" aontained 1n a c1t 7 ordi- nanoe makinG 1t unlawful to drive ~ mot or ve~o~e upon t he streets ' li l e under the influence of intoxicating l i quor was o:motl y synonymoua w1 th the term "in an 1ntox1• cated condition" used L~ a atate statute of sim1lar de- sign, stated : 11 And l'le ar e of the opinion that the t erm 1under the influence or l iquor• has a well-reoo~zeO meaning with evGcy ono, llh1ch is exactlY" synonymous wi th the ter.m 'in an intoxicated con-c:i t1on' • 11 In Holley v. State, 25 Ala. App . 260, 144 So. 535, the Alabama Court of Appeals affi~ed a conviction notwithstanding the tact that the affidavit t i l ed in common pl eas court charged defendant with driving an automQb1le r~ile intoxi• cated,w wbcreas the 1nforDat1on fi l ed on appeal in the o1rou1t court chart;ed the de f ondant lri th dr1. V:l.n£ a vehicl e on the h1ghwa7 while "baing under influence of int oxicating l iquors. " L~ stating that there was no val•i&.nce between the t orms, the Court stat ed: "The e.rgument 1• made that there is a mate~ial substantial difference between ' being under the intluenoe ot i.'"ltoY.icati.ng liquo~s ' end 1be1ns int oxicated 1 • The difterenee 18 that ot'Tweedle dee and Tweedle dum'. It a man is under the influence or 1ntox!oat ing liquors, he is intoxi- cated, and, if he is into.~cated within the meaning of this statute, he is under the infl uence or 1rltoX1cating l iquor. " CONCLUSI OU In order to asGeao t~elve points for a ocnviotion ot "dri v1ng under the ini'luel~oe o! 1ntoxieat1nG liquor or narcot~c drugsq 1n vlolation of state statutes as provided Honol'able John K. Leopard • 5 1n sect~on 302.302, RBMo 1961 CUmulative Supplement, one must be oonVioted under Sections 564.420, 564.430 or 564.440, RSMo 1959. Tho foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by my Assistant, George W. Dr-aper, II. GD:bj-df Veey truly youra, TkoJiflS P. Elafkl'O!f Attorney General