Scott concedes that if either the injured party or an officer was present at the exact time of the accident, he would have been guilty of leaving the scene of an accident. A police officer, however, is rarely, if ever, going to be present at the scene at the exact time the accident occurs and would usually arrive only after someone called him to the scene. Thus, by including police officers in § 577.060.1, the legislature obviously intended that people could be present at the scene even though they were not present at the exact time of the accident. In other words, the legislature intended that the injured party or a police officer could arrive shortly after the accident and the defendant would be required to give him his information. State v. Hodge, 771 S.W.2d 379, 380 (Mo.App.1989) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, Mr. Scott’s interpretation of
holding that convictions for both leaving the scene of an accident involving injury and leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage only were inconsistent and therefore could not be sustained holding that the words at the scene   imply a specific place    and limit rather than expand the officers power to arrest and the scene is the place where the accident occurred holding scene of accident was suspicious place holding that probable cause was clearly present justifying the taking of a blood sample without the defendants consent when it was established that the defendant was involved in an automobile accident and the police noticed liquor on his breath at the scene of the accident and at the hospital holding that the defendant was guilty of leaving the scene because the injured party and a police officer were present at the scene within a reasonable time after the accident