 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. State1/21/1999
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Lincoln, Honorable Michael Prezeau, Judge Presiding.
Submitted on Briefs: December 30, 1998
. In April, 1998, the Montana driver's license of Faye Gregory Williams was revoked under the implied consent law, § 61-8-402(4), MCA, based upon Williams's refusal to submit to a breath test to determine her blood alcohol concentration. The Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, upheld the revocation. Williams appeals. We affirm.
. The issue is whether the District Court properly denied Williams's petition for reinstatement of her driver's license.
. A Lincoln County sheriff's deputy stopped Williams at about 3:00 a.m. on April 19, 1998, based on his observation that she was operating her automobile in an erratic manner. Williams submitted to a preliminary alcohol screening test (PAST) at the scene, the results of which indicated that her blood alcohol concentration was above the statutory limit at which a driver is presumed to be under the influence. She was placed under arrest for driving under the influence (DUI) and was taken to the Eureka, Montana police station.
. At the police station, the deputy read Williams the implied consent advisory form provided by the Montana Department of Justice. The advisory states that a person who refuses to take a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test when asked to do so by an arresting officer will lose his or her driver's license for six months, or for a year if that person has refused a test within the past five years. The advisory further states that a person has a right to obtain an independent blood test but does not have a right to speak to an attorney before deciding whether to take the test. In response to the officer's repeated attempts to obtain her consent to a BAC test, Williams replied that she "already blew," and she refused to do so again. On that basis, the deputy seized Williams's driver's license.
. Williams appealed to the District Court, arguing that she had not been provided with an adequate explanation by the arresting officer that submission to a PAST pursuant to § 61-8-409, MCA, did not satisfy her obligation to submit to a BAC test pursuant to § 61-8-402, MCA. At the hearing on her appeal to the District Court, Williams testified that she had believed that she had satisfied her obligation to submit to a test for blood alcohol concentration when she submitted to the PAST.
. The District Court found that Williams was stopped based upon the deputy's observation that she was operating her vehicle in an erratic manner. The court reviewed the audio tape of the colloquy in which Williams consented to the PAST, and the videotape taken at the police station. The court found that after questioning Williams briefly, the deputy asked her to submit to the PAST, which she did. The court found that the PAST results indicated that Williams's blood alcohol concentration was above the statutory limit, and that the deputy then placed Williams under arrest and transported her to the Eureka police station, where he read her the implied consent advisory form. The court found that the deputy asked Williams a number of times whether she would take the breath test to determine her BAC, and he informed her of the consequences of her refusal to do so. . . . . . . If Williams was confused, it was through no fault of [the deputy]. [The deputy] did everything but get on his hands and knees and plead with Williams to submit to the breath test. . . . It is not necessary for law enforcement officers to engage in an extended debate with arrestees in order to convince them to do what the law requ
Page 1 2 3 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|