 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. May3/2/2004
Submitted on Briefs: January 6, 2004
Reserving her right to appeal issues relating to suppression of evidence, Cheri Larkin May pled guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) and violating probationary driver's license restrictions in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County. The District Court entered judgment and May appeals. We reverse and remand.
The dispositive issue is whether the District Court erred when it denied May's motion to suppress evidence and statements obtained as a result of an illegal arrest.
BACKGROUND
At 10:30 p.m. on February 19, 2002, May drove a 1997 Ford Thunderbird into the parking lot of the Visitors Control Center (visitors center) at Malmstrom Air Force Base (Malmstrom) near Great Falls, Montana. She parked the car, got out and went into the visitors center, where airmen working as security and law enforcement officers process civilian requests to enter the base. As part of this process--which usually takes about 10 minutes--May gave her driver's license, registration and proof of insurance to the airmen.
While May was in the visitors center, the airmen processing her request to enter the base smelled the odor of alcohol on her. Their understanding was that--because May was a civilian--they could detain, but not arrest, her. At 10:45 p.m., they took her to the base's "gate shack" to confer with other law enforcement airmen and then, after another 20 minutes, took her back to the visitors center to wait for a Montana Highway Patrol officer to arrive in response to their request at 10:55 p.m. that one be dispatched to Malmstrom.
Highway Patrol Officer Lori Gasvoda was dispatched to Malmstrom at 11:12 p.m. and arrived at the base at 11:23 p.m. Gasvoda was advised the airmen could smell alcohol on May. After she, too, smelled alcohol on May, Gasvoda administered three field sobriety tests--the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the one-leg stand and the walk-and-turn test--which indicated May was impaired. Gasvoda then administered a preliminary breath test which showed that May's blood alcohol concentration was .220, and arrested May for DUI. She read May an implied consent form and obtained a breath sample result of .193.
May filed four pretrial motions in which she asked the District Court to suppress evidence resulting from her arrest. In the motion which is dispositive of this appeal, May argued that her detainment by the Air Force officers constituted an arrest which was illegal because it was not based on probable cause. On that basis, she moved to suppress all evidence seized--and statements she made--during and after her detainment.
The District Court held a combined hearing on May's motions, at the end of which it denied all four motions to suppress evidence. May then pled guilty, reserving the right to appeal the orders on her motions to suppress. The court sentenced May, entered judgment and stayed her sentence pending appeal. May now appeals the order denying her motions to suppress evidence.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence to determine whether the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether they are correctly applied as a matter of law. State v. Courville , 2002 MT 330, 14, 313 Mont. 218, 14, 61 P.3d 749, 14 (citation omitted). Here, the District Court stated--and the parties do not dispute--that the facts are "generally agreed upon." Therefore, we review the District Court's denial of the motion to suppress to determine whether it was correct as a matter of law.
DISCUSSION
Did the District Court e
Page 1 2 3 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|