 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Muri v. State7/27/2004
Submitted on Briefs: June 8, 2004
Glenda G. Muri (Muri) appeals from the order entered by the Sixteenth Judicial District Court, Custer County, denying her petition for reinstatement of her driver's license. We affirm.
The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying Muri's petition to reinstate her driver's license.
BACKGROUND
Miles City Police Department Officer Jeremy Tafelmeyer (Tafelmeyer) was on patrol at approximately 2:00 a.m. on February 25, 2003, when he observed a vehicle make a left turn without signaling. Tafelmeyer began following the vehicle. At that point, they were traveling down a two-lane street with one lane of traffic in each direction. Tafelmeyer observed that the registration tags on the vehicle's rear license plate had expired and he initiated a traffic stop on that basis. Based on observations made before and during the traffic stop, Tafelmeyer believed the driver, Muri, to be driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Muri performed field sobriety tests at Tafelmeyer's request, following which he arrested her for DUI. During the subsequent arrest procedure, Muri was asked to submit to a test of her blood alcohol content and she refused to do so. Consequently, the State of Montana (State) seized and suspended Muri's driver's license pursuant to § 61-8-402(4), MCA.
Muri petitioned the District Court requesting reinstatement of her driver's license based on her assertion that Tafelmeyer did not have reasonable grounds to believe she was operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The District Court held a hearing on the petition at which Tafelmeyer was the sole witness. The court subsequently entered its order denying Muri's petition and Muri appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a district court's ruling on a petition for reinstatement of a driver's license to determine whether the court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous and its conclusions of law correct. Widdicombe v. State ex rel. Lafond, 2004 MT 49, 7, 320 Mont. 133, 7, 85 P.3d 1271, 7. "A suspension of a license is presumed to be correct, and the petitioner bears the burden of proving that the state's action was improper." Widdicombe, 7.
DISCUSSION
Did the District Court err in denying Muri's petition to reinstate her driver's license?
A person driving, or in actual physical control, of a vehicle on ways of Montana open to the public is considered to have given consent to a blood or breath test. Section 61-8402(1), MCA. A test of a person's blood or breath to determine the presence of alcohol or drugs must be administered when a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has been driving or has been in actual physical control of a vehicle upon ways of this state open to the public while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two and the person has been placed under arrest for a violation of 61-8-401.
Section 61-8-402(2)(a)(i), MCA. If a person is arrested for DUI and refuses to submit to such a test, the arresting officer must seize the person's driver's license and the license will be suspended administratively. Section 61-8-402(4), MCA.
A person whose license is seized and suspended pursuant to § 61-8-402(4), MCA, may file a petition in the district court challenging the suspension. Section 61-8-403(1), MCA. In such a proceeding, the issues to be addressed by the district court are limited. In the present case, those issues are whether a peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe that the person had been driving or was in actual physical control of
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|