 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Turbiville12/15/2003
, 40, 313 Mont. 185, 40, 60 P.3d 975, 40 (Rice, J., dissenting). Here, § 61-1-136(3), MCA, is neither vague on its face, nor has Turbiville shown it to be vague as applied to his particular situation. Rather, the advisory accomplished its purpose of informing Turbiville, an apparently intoxicated individual, of the potentially serious consequences of losing his Montana driving privileges should he refuse to take a breath test. See Simmons , 17. Consequently, Turbiville's constitutional challenge for vagueness fails.
Turbiville additionally attacks § 61-8-402(4) and (7), MCA, as unconstitutional; however, he advances no discernable arguments in support thereof. When "the challenged statute is 'reasonably clear in its application to the conduct of the person bringing the challenge, it cannot be stricken for vagueness.'" State v. Dixon , 2000 MT 82, 20, 299 Mont. 165, 20, 998 P.2d 544, 20. Thus, the holding in Simmons controls this case. Accordingly, the District Court did not err in denying Turbiville's motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
JIM RICE
We concur:
PATRICIA COTTER
JIM REGNIER
W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
|