 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hayes v. State6/14/2005
Submitted on Briefs: February 2, 2005
Gregory Lynn Hayes (Hayes) appeals from the order entered by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, on January 27, 2004, concluding that Hayes was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol on a "way of this state open to the public" and denying his petition challenging the suspension of his driver's license. We affirm the order of the District Court.
We address the following issue:
Did the District Court err in concluding that a business parking lot was a "way of this state open to the public" pursuant to § 61-8-101(1), MCA?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In the early morning hours of October 24, 2003, Libby City Police Officers David Bower (Officer Bower) and Matt White (Officer White) observed a person lying on the ground approximately eight feet away from an idling pickup in the parking lot of the Caboose Restaurant and Lounge (Caboose). In the process of attending to the prone man and determining he had no connection to the idling pickup, Officer White approached the pickup and found an intoxicated Hayes sitting at the steering wheel. Further investigation led to the officers' request that Hayes submit to a breath test and field sobriety tests. However, Hayes refused to submit to either. Hayes was then placed under arrest and processed for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). Hayes's driver's license was also seized for violation of the implied consent law.
On November 3, 2003, Hayes filed a petition challenging the license suspension. Hayes claimed that he did not violate the implied consent law because the parking lot of the Caboose was privately owned and did not constitute a "way of this state open to the public" pursuant to the provisions of § 61-8-101, MCA.
The lot on which the Caboose is located has a triangular shape and is bounded on its southwest side by Highway 2. On its northern side, along which the Caboose building sits, runs an old, abandoned county road. Generally, customers of adjoining businesses do not park in the Caboose parking lot, nor do people use the parking lot to access the county road from Highway 2, because a fence behind the Caboose restricts such access.
However, the Caboose is not an exclusive, private club and customers do not need permission to park in the lot. The parking lot is open to all members of the public who want to patronize the Caboose. There are no "private property" or "no trespassing" signs posted. While the Caboose parking lot is unpaved and has a rough surface with potholes, a vendor is permitted to sell flowers and also permitted to sell Christmas trees during the holiday season in the lot.
The District Court held a hearing on Hayes's petition on December 12, 2003. Following briefing by both parties, the District Court entered an order denying Hayes's petition on January 27, 2004. Hayes appeals therefrom.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In reviewing a district court's conclusions of law, our standard of review is plenary, and this Court must determine whether the District Court's conclusion that a business parking lot was a "way of the state open to the public" is correct. State v. Feldbrugge, 2002 MT 154, 14, 310 Mont. 368, 14, 50 P.3d 1067, 14.
DISCUSSION
Did the District Court err in concluding that a business parking lot was a "way of this state open to the public" pursuant to § 61-8-101(1), MCA?
Montana's implied consent law provides that:
A person who operates or is in actual physical control of a vehicle upon ways of this state open to the public is consi
Page 1 2 3 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|