 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Billings v. Peterson8/24/2004
Submitted on Briefs: April 7, 2004
A Billings Municipal Court jury convicted Rocky T. Peterson of the misdemeanor offenses of careless driving and driving under the influence of alcohol. After a number of interim procedural steps, the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, affirmed an earlier order upholding the Municipal Court's denial of certain pretrial motions. Peterson appeals and we affirm.
We restate the issues as follows:
1. Did the District Court err in affirming the Municipal Court's determination that an officer had particularized suspicion to stop Peterson when no recording of the hearing on Peterson's motion was available for review?
2. Did the District Court err in affirming the Municipal Court's denial of Peterson's motion to dismiss for unnecessary delay in his initial appearance?
3. Did the District Court err in affirming the Municipal Court's denial of Peterson's motion to dismiss for violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial?
4. Did the District Court err in affirming the Municipal Court's denial of Peterson's discovery request to review an officer's personnel records?
BACKGROUND
On August 30, 2001, Billings Police Officer Shawn Finnegan issued Peterson a notice to appear October 2, 2001, in the Billings Municipal Court on charges of careless driving and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Peterson appeared and pled not guilty.
Peterson moved to dismiss, alleging Finnegan lacked particularized suspicion to stop his vehicle. He also moved to suppress his breath test results, alleging improper administration of his breath alcohol tests. After a hearing, the Municipal Court orally denied the motion.
Peterson also moved for an order requiring the City to respond to discovery requests, one of which asked for " he personnel records of the officers involved in defendant's arrest and in the operation of any tests given him." After a hearing, the Municipal Court denied the request for personnel records and granted Peterson's other discovery requests.
The Municipal Court originally scheduled trial for December 5, 2001. The City moved for continuances on November 27, December 11 and February 22. Peterson did not object to the first continuance, which was due to the prosecutor's illness. The Municipal Court granted the second and third motions, which were based on Finnegan's unavailability, over Peterson's objections. Peterson then moved to dismiss, asserting unnecessary delay in his initial appearance and violation of his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Municipal Court denied the motion. On April 1, 2002, a jury convicted Peterson of both charged offenses.
Peterson appealed to the District Court, requesting preparation of a trial transcript and all recorded pretrial hearings. The Municipal Court transmitted the record, including a form identifying the tape of the pretrial hearing on Peterson's particularized suspicion motion as #945. The tape was not transmitted, as Peterson's briefs to the District Court acknowledged.
The District Court affirmed in part, determining the Municipal Court correctly denied Peterson's pretrial motions, but reversed on other issues and remanded for retrial. On remand, Peterson pled guilty, reserving the right to appeal those portions of the District Court's earlier order affirming the Municipal Court. The District Court granted Peterson's request to reaffirm its earlier order for purposes of appeal to this Court. Peterson appeals.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
The existence of particularized suspicion
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|