 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Allen12/3/1998
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula, The Honorable Edward P. McLean, Judge presiding.
Submitted on Briefs: May 28, 1998
. The defendant, Kevin Allen, appealed to the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District in Missoula County from a conviction in Missoula County Justice Court for driving under the influence of alcohol and improper use of dealer plates. Allen made a motion to suppress evidence and the District Court denied it. Allen then pled guilty and reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. Following consideration of that appeal, we affirm the order of the District Court.
. The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred when it denied Allen's motion to suppress evidence.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
. The parties have stipulated to the following facts:
. On December 16, 1997, Highway Patrol Officer Michael J. Burman initiated a traffic stop of Kevin Allen at approximately 2:45 p.m. Burman based the stop on his observation that Allen's vehicle did not have a front license plate.
. He approached Allen's vehicle and explained the reason for the stop. When Burman asked Allen if he knew that there was no front license plate, Allen showed Burman a demonstrator plate from a used car dealership in Billings which had been inside his car. Burman explained to Allen that the plate had to be displayed and then ran a check on Allen's driver's license. He became suspicious that Allen was improperly using the demonstration plate and testified that at that time he intended to cite defendant for improper use of a dealer plate pursuant to § 61-4-103(4), MCA.
. Burman returned to Allen's car and asked him to exit the vehicle to speak with Burman. As he explained the charges which were being made against Allen, Burman detected the odor of alcohol and asked Allen whether he had been drinking. Allen admitted to having two beers. Burman then asked Allen to perform roadside sobriety tests, to which Allen responded that he would like to consult with his lawyer. Burman told him that at that time he did not have the right to call his lawyer. Allen performed the tests, but Burman concluded that he had failed those tests, and placed Allen under arrest for DUI. After he was transported to the police department office, Allen provided a breath sample that measured his blood alcohol content at 0.13. The time was 3:50 p.m. He was then advised of his Miranda rights for the first time.
. In Justice Court, Allen moved to suppress any statements he made prior to his arrest. He contended that he was in custody during Burman's roadside investigation, and that he was therefore entitled to a Miranda(1) warning. The motion was denied and Allen was convicted by a jury of DUI and improper use of dealer plates. On appeal to the District Court, he made the same motion to suppress, which was also denied. Allen eventually pled guilty to the DUI charge and reserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress; the improper use of dealer plates charge was dismissed.
DISCUSSION
. Did the District Court err when it denied Allen's motion to suppress evidence?
. We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the court's interpretation and application of the law is correct. See State v. Scheetz (Mont. 1997), 950 P.2d 722, 724, 54 St. Rep. 1286, 1287; State v. Graham (1995), 271 Mont. 510, 512, 898 P.2d 1206, 1207-08.
. Pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, a defendant is entitled to be informe
Page 1 2 3 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|