 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hatler3/1/2001
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis and Clark, Honorable Thomas C. Honzel, Judge Presiding
Submitted on Briefs: February 2, 2001
Appellant Mark Christopher Hatler (Hatler) entered a guilty plea to charges of driving while under the influence (first offense); operating a motor vehicle while his license was suspended or revoked; and failure to have proof of liability insurance. He appeals from the First Judicial District Court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
On November 11, 1998, Highway Patrol Officer Joe Cohenour observed a brown pickup traveling south on Interstate 15 near Sieben Flats. The speed of the vehicle was oscillating between fifty and sixty miles per hour. All other vehicles were passing the pickup. Cohenour observed that the truck's license plate was new, shiny and clean, in contrast to the rest of the truck. Cohenour ran a license plate check. After determining that the license plate matched the truck, he had dispatch ascertain the registered owner. Dispatch informed Cohenour that the registered owner was Mark Hatler. Dispatch further informed Cohenour that Hatler's driver's license was expired but that he did have a valid Montana ID card.
Cohenour then initiated a traffic stop. When asked for his driver's license, Hatler handed Cohenour his Montana ID card. Section 61-12-502, MCA, provides for the issuance of "identification cards." An identification card issued pursuant to this section does not, however, supplant the requirement that a driver possess a valid Montana driver's license. Hatler told Cohenour that his driver's license was expired but that he was trying to get it straightened out with the State of Idaho. Cohenour then determined that Hatler's Idaho license was suspended. Detecting the smell of alcohol, Cohenour had Hatler perform some sobriety tests. Based on Hatler's performance on those tests, he arrested Hatler for driving under the influence , driving with a suspended license and failing to have proof of liability insurance. Hatler filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officer did not have a particularized suspicion to justify an investigatory stop. The District Court denied the motion to suppress. Hatler then pled guilty to all three charges reserving his right to appeal the suppression issue.
Hatler presents the following issue: Did Officer Cohenour, based upon his observations and the information he received from dispatch, have particularized suspicion to believe that Hatler had committed or was committing an offense?
Standard of Review
The standard of review of a district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence is whether the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether those findings were correctly applied as a matter of law. State v. Grimes, 1999 MT 145, 295 Mont. 22, 982 P.2d 1037.
Discussion
Section 46-5-401, MCA (1997), provides:
Investigative stop. In order to obtain or verify an account of the person's presence or conduct or to determine whether to arrest the person, a peace officer may stop any person or vehicle that is observed in circumstances that create a particularized suspicion that the person or occupant of the vehicle has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.
Section 61-5-102(1), MCA (1997), provides:
Drivers to be licensed. (1) No person, except those expressly exempted under 61-5-104, shall drive any motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person has a valid Montana driver's license. . . .
Hatler contends that the § 61-5-104,
Page 1 2 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|