 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Missoula v. O'Neill11/23/2004
s provided in the Agreement.
As stated above, the area in which Blazevich was patrolling when he observed O'Neill's vehicle speeding is referred to as the "South Campus Stadium area." Thus, the University deems this area to be part of its campus. Furthermore, the word "campus" is defined as "the grounds and buildings of a university, college, or school." WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 323 (3rd ed. 1993). The athletic field, parking lots and family housing, as well as the land on which they are located, are clearly "grounds and buildings" belonging to the University. We conclude the District Court did not err in determining that the area in which Blazevich was patrolling was part of the University campus and, as a result, that the relevant sections of Higgins Avenue and Pattee Canyon Drive were contiguous to the University campus. We further conclude, therefore, that the court did not err in determining Blazevich had jurisdiction under Section IIB of the agreement to stop O'Neill's vehicle for speeding.
O'Neill also argues that, even if Blazevich had jurisdiction to stop him for speeding, Blazevich did not have jurisdiction to subsequently arrest him for DUI. He concedes that DUI is a "moving traffic violation" as that phrase is used in the Agreement. He observes, however, that Sections IIB and IIC of the Agreement give University campus security officers jurisdiction to issue citations for moving traffic violations in general, while Section IID gives them jurisdiction to issue citations for certain specific moving traffic violations including DUI. He contends that, by referring to specific individual traffic violations in Section IID, the Agreement intended to limit campus security officers' jurisdiction to issue citations for those specific violations to only the geographic area covered by Section IID-namely, only within the boundaries of the University campus--and, therefore, the moving traffic violations referred to in Sections IIB and IIC do not include those offenses specified in IID. Consequently, according to O'Neill, Blazevich did not have jurisdiction to arrest him for DUI because the offense did not occur within the boundaries of the University campus. He further asserts that to define the phrase "moving traffic violation" as used in Sections IIB and IIC to include the offenses specified in IID would render the language of IID meaningless. We disagree.
The three paragraphs of the Agreement at issue here each confer jurisdiction on University campus security officers for different geographic areas. Section IIB covers "streets and alleys contiguous to the campus," IIC covers "streets and alleys within the boundaries of the campus" and IID covers all areas "within the boundaries of the campus[.]" Thus, Sections IIB and IIC authorize campus security officers to issue citations for all moving traffic violations occurring on streets and alleys within or contiguous to campus. On the other hand, Section IID authorizes campus security officers to issue citations for specified moving traffic violations wherever they might occur within the boundaries of the campus. Interpreting the Agreement in this manner does not render the language of Section IID meaningless.
We conclude that the District Court did not err in determining that Blazevich had jurisdiction pursuant to Section IIB of the Agreement to issue a citation to and arrest O'Neill for DUI occurring on a street contiguous to the University campus. We hold, therefore, that the District Court did not err in affirming the Missoula Municipal Court's denial of O'Neill's motion to dismiss.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|