Uo. t28b3
ilq LBE ~ U P K E P ~COURT 3~
L STATE OF MONIIANA
1975
S'fATE OF XONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs -
H. K. MANGELS,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T w e l f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable B. W. Thomas, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Courisel of Record:
For Appellant :
Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a ,
Montana
Thomas A. Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d ,
H e l e n a , Montana
W i l l i a m Solem, County A t t o r n e y , Chinook, Montana
S t u a r t C. MacKenzie, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d ,
Chinook, Montana
F o r Respondent:
R o b e r t D. Morrison a r g u e d , Havre, Montana
Morrison, E t t i e n and B a r r o n , Havre, Montana
- - -
Submitted: J a n u a r y 2 1 , 1975
-C - 4 4
Decided :Jpd 4
:,,, 5P7
Filed:
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
H e r b e r t R . Mangels was c o n v i c t e d i n t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t
of B l a i n e County f o r d r i v i n g w h i l e under t h e i n f l u e n c e of i n -
toxicating liquor. He a p p e a l e d from t h a t c o n v i c t i o n t o t h e
d i s t r i c t court. P r i o r t o t r i a l t h e r e , he f i l e d a motion t o
s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e o f h i s blood a l c o h o l l e v e l , d e r i v e d from a
blood sample t a k e n s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e . The motion
was g r a n t e d , and t h e S t a t e h e r e a p p e a l s from t h a t o r d e r .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e motion t o s u p p r e s s
s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s of a n a g r e e d s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s and s u p p o r t -
i n g memoranda by t h e p a r t i e s . N f u r t h e r evidence o r o r a l argu-
o
ment was r e c e i v e d .
On t h e e v e n i n g o f August 2 6 , 1973, d e f e n d a n t was i n v o l v e d
i n a t w o - v e h i c l e c o l l i s i o n on U.S. Highway No. 2 , n e a r Lohman,
Montana. Only d e f e n d a n t was i n j u r e d a n d , w h i l e he was a w a i t i n g
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o a nearby h o s p i t a l , t h e o d o r o f a l c o h o l was
d e t e c t e d on h i s b r e a t h by t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g highway p a t r o l m a n .
Defendant a r r i v e d a t t h e h o s p i t a l by ambulance a p p r o x i -
mately f o r t y - f i v e minutes a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t occurred. The n u r s e
on d u t y n o t e d " t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t a p p e a r e d t o be c o n f u s e d and
was s u f f e r i n g from a b r a s i o n s and c o n t u s i o n s " . A t t h e r e q u e s t of
t h e highway p a t r o l m a n , t h e n u r s e p r e p a r e d t o t a k e a blood sample
f o r d e t e r m i n i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s blood a l c o h o l l e v e l . The n u r s e t o l d
d e f e n d a n t t h a t s h e was g o i n g t o draw h i s b l o o d , b u t d i d n o t t e l l
him h e r purpose i n d o i n g s o . Defendant n e i t h e r o b j e c t e d n o r
e x p r e s s l y c o n s e n t e d t o t h e t a k i n g of t h e sample. A n a l y s i s of t h a t
sample l a t e r r e v e a l e d a . 1 9 blood a l c o h o l l e v e l .
The highway p a t r o l m a n d i d n o t t a l k t o d e f e n d a n t a t any
time p r i o r t o t h e t a k i n g o f t h e blood sample. A t no t i m e had de-
f e n d a n t been t o l d t h a t he was under a r r e s t o r t h a t he was c h a r g e d
w l t h d r i v i n y w h i l e under t h e i n f l u e n c e of i n t o x i c a t i n g l i q u o r .
In t h e p a t r o l m a n ' s o p i n i o n , h e d i d n o t a r r e s t d e f e n d a n t , a l t h o u g h
h e d i d g i v e him a c i t a t i o n on t h e morning f o l l o w i n g t h e a c c i d e n t
and t h e b l o o d t e s t . S e v e r a l weeks l a t e r , a c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d
i n j u s t i c e c o u r t and a w a r r a n t f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s a r r e s t was i s s u e d .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d , i n g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n t o s u p -
p r e s s , t h a t s i n c e d e f e n d a n t had n o t been a r r e s t e d a n d s i n c e h e
had n o t g i v e n h i s a c t u a l c o n s e n t t o t h e t e s t , t h e t a k i n g o f t h e
s a m p l e was i n v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 32-2142.1, R.C.M. 1947. This
appeal presents t h a t issue only.
The c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e , a s c i t e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s
o r d e r , i s s e c t i o n 32-2142.1, R.C.M. 1947. It provides:
" ( a ) Any p e r s o n who o p e r a t e s a motor v e h i c l e
upon t h e p u b l i c highways of t h i s s t a t e s h a l l
be deemed t o h a v e g i v e n c o n s e n t , s u b j e c t t o
t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 32-2142, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ,
t o a chemical t e s t of h i s blood, b r e a t h , o r
u r i n e f o r t h e purpose of determining t h e a l c o h o l i c
c o n t e n t o f h i s b l o o d i f a r r e s t e d by a p e a c e o f f i c e r
f o r d r i v i n g o r i n a c t u a l p h y s i c a l c o n t r o l of a
motor v e h i c l e w h i l e u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f i n t o x i -
c a t i n g l i q u o r . * * * The a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r may
d e s i g n a t e which o f t h e a f o r e s a i d t e s t s s h a l l b e
administered.
" ( b ) Any p e r s o n who i s u n c o n s c i o u s o r who i s
o t h e r w i s e i n a c o n d i t i o n r e n d e r i n g him i n c a p a b l e
o f r e f u s a l , s h a l l be deemed n o t t o h a v e withdrawn
t h e c o n s e n t p r o v i d e d by p a r a g r a p h ( a ) o f t h i s
section.
" (c) I f a p e r s o n u n d e r a r r e s t r e f u s e s upon t h e
r e q u e s t of a peace o f f i c e r t o submit t o a chemical
t e s t d e s i g n a t e d by t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r a s p r o -
vided i n paragraph (a) of t h i s s e c t i o n , none s h a l l
b e g i v e n . * * *." [Emphasis a d d e d . ]
The absence of an a r r e s t i s n o t d i s p u t e d , b u t t h e S t a t e a s s e r t s
t h a t an a r r e s t i s n o t r e q u i r e d under paragraph ( b ) . Defendant
a r g u e s t h a t h e was n e i t h e r u n c o n s c i o u s n o r " o t h e r w i s e i n a con-
d i t i o n r e n d e r i n g him i n c a p a b l e o f r e f u s a l " and t h e r e f o r e p a r a -
graph ( a ) c o n t r o l s . Paragraph ( a ) c l e a r l y r e q u i r e s an a r r e s t
b e f o r e t h e i m p l i e d c o n s e n t p r o v i s i o n becomes o p e r a t i v e . The
r e q u i r e m e n t i s c l e a r , b o t h on t h e f a c e o f t h e s t a t u t e a n d i n t h e
title of the original act. Sec. 1, Ch. 131, Laws of 1971. It
is equally apparent that there is no similar requirement in
paragraph (b) .
Unless the facts before us establish the applicability
of paragraph (b), we must affirm the district court's order
suppressing the blood test for lack of a preceding arrest. Since
there is no question as to defendant's consciousness, paragraph
(b) can only apply if the defendant was "in a condition render-
ing him incapable of refusal".
The agreed facts are insufficient to bring this case
within the provisions of paragraph (b). They do not establish
that defendant was in a condition rendering him incapable of
refusal. The nurse did not indicate in the hospital record that
defendant was intoxicated.
The State attempts to meet that argument by asserting
that the defendant's physical condition was so unstable that any
questions by the patrolman would have been injurious. The agreed
statement of facts does not support that argument.
Finally, the State urges our adoption of the rationale
employed by the Florida court in State v. Mitchell (Fla. 1971),
245 So.2d 618. While the facts and statutes presented there are
somewhat parallel to the instant case, we are not persuaded. Al-
though here the State argues that the arresting officer must have
discretion in making his determination of capacity, the result
of the rationale employed by the Florida court is a vesting of
too much discretion. The potential for abuse is manifest. The
arresting officer, under the broad discretion there granted, need
only find some fact on which to base a conclusion of incapacity,
and then he need not arrest or request the test, before ordering
its administration.
We do not mean to suggest that such abuse is likely in
Xontana, but the potential for abuse outweighs any inconvenience
which might result from a narrower construction. Section 32-
2142.1, R.C.M. 1947, limits the.,officerls
discretion to those
cases where the subject is incapable of refusing the test. Here,
we only require that the incapacity be determined on the basis
of the best evidence which is reasonably available to the officer.
The agreed statement of facts does not so indicate here.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order sup-
pressing the results of the blood test.
Justice
i e cbncur :
q ..
I dissent. I would hold t h a t evidence of che b l o o d sample
caken 1:rorn defendant i s a d m i s s i b l e a g a i n s t him.
The o p i n i o n of t h e m a j o r i t y s t a n d s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t
t h e highway patrolman o r p o l i c e o f f i c e r on t h e scene does have t h e
d i s c r e t i o n t o make t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether t h e s u s p e c t i s
" i n a c o n d i t i o n r e n d e r i n g him i n c a p a b l e of r e f u s a l " b u t t h a t , i n
t h i s c a s e , t h e agreed s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o
s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h i s defendant was "in a c o n d i t i o n r e n d e r i n g
him i n c a p a b l e of r e f u s a l " . I would hold t h a t t h e agreed s t a t e m e n t
of f a c t s does s u p p o r t such a f i n d i n g . The defendant was i n t h e
emergency room of t h e h o s p i t a l . He was i n a s u p i n e p o s i t i o n a t a l l
times. The n u r s e on d u t y noted t h a t defendant "appeared t o be con-
fused and was s u f f e r i n g a b r a s i o n s and c o n t u s i o n s . " To have a c t u a l l y
placed defendant under a r r e s t a t t h i s time q u i t e p o s s i b l y could
have worsened h i s p h y s i c a l and emotional c o n d i t i o n . Public policy
demands t h e l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of laws concerning d r i v i n g on
p u b l i c highways w h i l e under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l . The drunk
d r i v e r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a g r e a t p e r c e n t a g e of t r a f f i c d e a t h s
on t h e n a t i o n ' s highways. The "implied consent" law was e n a c t e d
a s a d e t e r r e n t f o r c e t o keep drunk d r i v e r s o f f t h e road. In order
t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e law, law enforcement o f f i c e r s must be a b l e
t o use d i s c r e t i o n i n e n f o r c i n g i t . T h i s i s n o t an u n b r i d l e d d i s -
c r e ~ i o n ,a s t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n would s u g g e s t , b u t i s d i s c r e t i o n
reviewable a t a l l times by t h e c o u r t s .