ROSE v EIGHTH JUD DIST COURT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-90 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 RONALD E. ROSE, Petitioner and Appellant, VS. THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, Cascade County, H. William Coder, Judge, Respondents. ORIGIPJAL PROCEEDING : Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Lawrence A. Anderson argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondents: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Mark Murphy, argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana Barbara Bell argued, Deputy County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana Mike Garrity argued, Dept. of Revenue, Helena, Montana Robert F. James, Great Falls, Montana Submitted: April 24,1981 Decided: -MAY Filed: 281a ? Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t . This an is application for a writ of certiorari s e e k i n g a r e v i e w o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s by which Ronald Rose was adjudged g u i l t y of contempt of c o u r t . The record discloses that 1 9 8 0 , t h e S t a t e o f Montana, on o r about January 15, t h e Department of Revenue, t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f S o c i a l and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n S e r v i c e s , D i a n a L . Ruff and L i s a M. R u f f f i l e d a p e t i t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of the Eighth Judicial establish paternity District, and p r o v i d e b o r n on S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 1 9 7 9 . State, based upon the Respondent, child, Lisa [Rose] Ruff." M. ". . . child a r e i n f o r m e d and is t h e f a t h e r of Diana Rose, E. to The p e t i t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t t h e following: Ronald County, s u p p o r t f o r a minor t h e m o t h e r and t h e d a u g h t e r b e l i e v e t h a t Respondent Cascade as Ruff the Attendant has father L. the child of to the named the petition the minor was a m o t i o n t o r e q u i r e Rose t o s u b m i t t o b l o o d t e s t s p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 40-6-112, An ex p a r t e o r d e r was i s s u e d by t h e MCA. D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e q u i r i n g Rose t o show c a u s e why h e s h o u l d not submit to a blood test. On F e b r u a r y 28, 1 9 8 0 , Rose f i l e d an a n s w e r . On March 11, 1 9 8 0 , Rose f i l e d a m o t i o n t o q u a s h t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e . submission to constitutional freedom from a The b a s i s f o r R o s e ' s m o t i o n was t h a t blood rights test including unreasonable would his searches violate right and of various privacy seizures. and In o p p o s i t i o n t h e p e t i t i o n e r s argued t h a t t h e reasonableness of t h e i n t r u s i o n , coupled with t h e compelling s t a t e i n t e r e s t t o determine parentage, authorizes the minimal p r i v a c y involved i n o b t a i n i n g a blood sample. invasion of On A u g u s t order vacating A u g u s t 20, 21, the the D i s t r i c t Court entered 1980, its set for pretrial hearing originally i t f o r December 1 9 8 0 , and r e s e t 15, 1980. The D i s t r i c t Court a d d i t i o n a l l y ordered t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s motion compelling discovery Subsequently, be heard on O c t o b e r 9 , on September 19, 1980. 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t Court issued a n e x p a r t e o r d e r f o r b l o o d t e s t s , whereby Rose was o r d e r e d to appear a t Columbus H o s p i t a l , Great Falls, October 21, 1980, t o submit t o a blood t e s t . asserting his right to refuse test, on After formally Rose failed to blood t e s t . appear f o r t h e court-ordered On November 5 , the Montana, 1 9 8 0 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d Rose t o show c a u s e why he s h o u l d n o t be h e l d i n c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t f o r f a i l i n g t o t a k e t h e blood test. the District Court found Rose in On November contempt of 28, 1980, court and issued the following decree: "1. T h a t R e s p o n d e n t , R o s e , be c o n f i n e d i n t h e C a s c a d e County J a i l f o r a p e r i o d o f f i v e days ; "2. T h a t t h e e x e c u t i o n o f s a i d judgment o f c o n t e m p t and o r d e r o f c o n f i n e m e n t i n t h e Cascade County J a i l b e , and h e r e b y i s , stayed ; " 3 . T h a t R e s p o n d e n t , R o s e , may p u r g e h i m s e l f of s a i d contempt by complying w i t h t h e Court's Order of October 9, 1980, by s u b m i t t i n g t o t h e r e q u i r e d blood t e s t w i t h i n f o u r t e e n d a y s from t h e d a t e h e r e o f ; "4. That t h e Clerk of t h i s Court is d i r e c t e d t o p r o v i d e n o t i c e of t h i s O r d e r by m a i l i n g a t r u e copy t h e r e o f t o t h e R e s p o n d e n t , Rose." On December United States 11, 1 9 8 0 , Rose f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t District Court 42 U.S.C. 1983, v i o l a t i o n s under MCA, violated his constitutional the court grant injunctive alleging civil in the rights i n t h a t s e c t i o n 40-6-112, rights. relief Rose p r a y e d barring the that State District Court 40-6-112, from MCA. has blood tests under section On J a n u a r y 6 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e S t a t e f i l e d a m o t i o n t o dismiss with Court ordering supporting not issued a briefs. The F e d e r a l temporary g r a n t e d any i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f District restraining at this time, order or and t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s is p r e s e n t l y under advisement. On o r a b o u t March 3 , 1 9 8 1 , Rose f i l e d w i t h t h i s C o u r t an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f t o determine t h e m a t t e r s s e t f o r t h above. On J u n e 27, 1 9 8 0 , p r i o r t o b e i n g h e l d i n c o n t e m p t by the D i s t r i c t Court, p e t i t i o n e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of supervisory control with t h i s Court. denied on the This appeal. submit ground ruling to the constitutional prior had an contemplated blood rights, he test and, adequate that in remedy petitioner the by would assertion of e i t h e r move t o s u p p r e s s t h e r e s u l t s t o an a d j u d i c a t i o n of p a t e r n i t y o r a p p e a l t h e f i n a l judgment on petitioner's an that The p e t i t i o n was the merits. would answer c o n t e n t i o n t h a t submission t o a blood t e s t is irretrievable however, procedure This it does forfeiture not of prevent constitutional a possible rights; constitutional violation i n the f i r s t instance. Herzog v. R e i n h a r d t ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 2 A r i z . A p p . 738, holds a c t i o n s of rights that citizens are protected the t r i a l court. are violated If 1 0 3 , 406 P.2d from a r b i t r a r y fundamental c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t h e contempt p r o c e s s , t h e contempt o r d e r c a n be a t t a c k e d c o l l a t e r a l l y a s v o i d , upon c e r t i o r a r i . Also, in contempt, method of precluding section review an appeal 3-1-523, is a MCA, writ of from an provides adjudication that certiorari. the A of only writ of certiorari w i l l its i s s u e o n l y when a t r i a l c o u r t h a s e x c e e d e d jurisdiction. State v. District Court J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ( 1 9 0 0 ) , 24 Mont. 4 9 4 , 62 P. Gr a v e l e y Mont The is which Second 820; M a t t e r o f . is statute in question attacked in isolation Uniform of section from 40-6-112, the balance MCA, of the A c t and p r o v i d e s a s f o l l o w s : " ( 1 ) The c o u r t may, and upon r e q u e s t o f a a r t y s h a l l , r e q u i r e t h e c h i l d , mother o r i l l e q e d f a t h e r t o submit t o blood t e s t s . The tests s h a l l be p e r f o r m e d by a n e x p e r t q u a l i f i e d a s an examiner of blood t y p e s , a p p o i n t e d by t h e c o u r t . " ( 2 ) The c o u r t , upon r e a s o n a b l e r e q u e s t b y a p a r t y , s h a l l o r d e r t h a t independent tests be performed by o t h e r e x p e r t s q u a l i f i e d a s examiners of blood t y p e s . " ( 3 ) In a l l cases the court s h a l l determine the number and qualifications of the experts." (Emphasis added.) I n Marshall v. 307, 98 S.Ct. 1816, Barlows, 56 OSHA ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 436 U.S. Inc., L.Ed.2d 305, the United States Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h e s e a r c h and s e i z u r e p r o v i s i o n o f F o u r t h Amendment applicable investigations. The Court C a l i f o r n i a ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U.S. to civil also 757, as held 86 S . C t . well in as the criminal Schmerber v. 1 8 2 6 , 1 6 L.Ed.2d "Cour t - o r d e r e d b l o o d t e s t s a r e u n d o u b t e d l y 'searches' within the meaning of the constitution. The Fourth Amendment p r o s c r i p t i o n , h o w e v e r , is d i r e c t e d o n l y t o t h o s e s e a r c h e s which a r e u n r e a s o n a b l e . An u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h i s o n e u n j u s t i f i e d by t h e circumstances o r c a r r i e d o u t i n an improper 3 8 4 U.S. a t 757. (Emphasis m a n n e.r . -" . supplied ) . I n S t a t e v . Meacham ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 93 Wash.2d 795, precisely the same p o i n t s came b e f o r e 738, 612 P.2d t h e Washington court as are presented in the case before us today. case, which In that involved two separate cases consolidated for appeal, the putative fathers were ordered to submit to the withdrawal of a small amount of their blood for testing. Each objected on constitutional grounds: (1) invasion of the right of privacy; (2) the unlawful search and seizure; and (3) interference with their freedom of religion. With respect to privacy the Washington court said: "The right to privacy, to be let alone, while fundamental and personal in nature, is not absolute. The State may reasonably regulate this right to safeguard society or where it otherwise has a compelling interest. Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 97 S.Ct. 869, 51 L.Ed.2d 64 (1977). "Here, the State has a compelling interest in fixing the parentage of a minor child. The test specified to be used is highly reliable. No other evidence that is at all comparable in effectiveness is available to the State. The pain inflicted when blood is withdrawn by an experienced technician is inconsequential. And, any hazard to health is virtually nonexistent." 612 P.2d 797. With respect to the argument that the blood test was an unreasonable search and seizure, the Washington said: "In addition to the issue of privacy, appellants challenge the order to submit to blood withdrawal on grounds that it constitutes an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. We reject that contention out of hand. "'Court-ordered blood tests are undoubtedly "searches" within the meaning of the constitution. The Fourth Amendment proscription, however, is direct* only to those searches which are unreasonable. A n unreasonable search is one unjustified by t G circumstances or carried out i n a n improper manner. ' Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. "For example, in Schmerber, a blood sample was taken over the objections of a criminal defendant. An informed, deliberate decision court was made t o o r d e r t h e t e s t . Because of t h e S t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t i n d e t e r r i n g driving while under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l and t h e r e l a t i v e l y inoffensive nature of a properly conducted blood t e s t , t h e t a k i n g of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s b l o o d i n t h e h o s p i t a l s e t t i n g was n o t deemed t o be a n u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h . " Meacham, 612 P.2d a t 798. However, the blood tests in Meacham were ordered a f t e r a f u l l adversary hearing before the t r i a l court where i t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a p r i m a f a c i e showing had b e e n made to justify the order for d i s c o v e r y from p e t i t i o n e r blood taken before the Here, attempts a t h a v e b e e n met w i t h c o n s t i t u t i o n a l objections a s t o h i s testimony. was tests. second A d e p o s i t i o n of order which t h e mother indicated sexual a c t i v i t y with p e t i t i o n e r . The Montana T i t l e 40, o f t h e e f f o r t s of for the children tests blood Montana Code A n n o t a t e d . a d o p t e d now i n most o f paid on in paternity is found i n a s e c t i o n o f t h e Uniform P a r e n t a g e proceedings Act, statute are h a s been The A c t a r i s e s b e c a u s e t h e f e d e r a l government t o r e c o v e r monies support born the states. The Act out of of dependent wedlock children or, as where here, an the absent p a r e n t is n o t s u p p o r t i n g h i s c h i l d . There is a s t r o n g s o c i e t a l r e a s o n f o r upholding such a c t s which r i s e f r o m d e c i s i o n s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n t h e 1970s t h a t i l l e g i t i m a t e c h i l d r e n were e n t i t l e d to the same legitimate developed, constitutional children. Out benefits of this and protections concept, only as lately h a s come t h e d o c t r i n e t h a t a m o t h e r , e v e n t h o u g h n o t wed, o r l i v i n g a p a r t from t h e f a t h e r , n e v e r t h e l e s s h a s a r i g h t t o h a v e t h e b u r d e n o f s u p p o r t s h a r e d by t h e f a t h e r o f the child. The C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t i n S a l a s v . C o r t e z , ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 154 C a l . R p t r . 529, 593 P.2d 226, d e f i n e s t h e S t a t e i n t e r e s t i n these cases as follows: "The state's interest in determining p a r e n t a g e h a s t r a d i t i o n a l l y been l i m i t e d t o p r e v e n t i n g c h i l d r e n born o u t of wedlock from becoming p u b l i c c h a r g e s ( s e e a n A c t f o r S e t t i n g t h e Poor on Work ( 1 5 7 6 ) , 1 8 E l i z . 1, Ch. 3 , S 2 , q u o t e d i n K r a u s e , s u p r a , a t p p . 105-106). The amendments t o f e d e r a l l a w which g a v e r i s e t o t h e p r e s e n t c a s e s w e r e b r o u g h t a b o u t by c o n c e r n s s i m i l a r t o t h o s e t h a t i n s p i r e d t h e E l i z a b e t h a n Poor Laws--the i n c r e a s i n g a p p e a r a n c e on t h e w e l f a r e r o l l s o f c h i l d r e n born o u t of wedlock. ( S e e , Note ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 52 Wash.L.Rev. 1 6 9 , 1 7 0 . ) In recent y e a r s n e a r l y h a l f of t h e f a m i l i e s r e c e i v i n g AFDC h a v e had a t l e a s t o n e c h i l d b o r n o u t o f wedlock. ( I d . a t 1 7 7 . ) Were t h e s t a t e a b l e t o r e c o v e r from a b s e n t p a r e n t s e v e n a p o r t i o n o f t h e f u n d s e x p e n d e d t h r o u g h t h e AFDC p r o g r a m , t h e s a v i n g s would be s u b s t a n t i a l . (See, Id. a t 172.) " I t i s c l e a r l y w i t h i n t h e power o f t h e s t a t e t o provide f o r t h e enforcement of t h e parental duty t o support one's children. The s t a t e may f u r t h e r l e g i t i m a t e l y p r o v i d e f o r t h e e x p e n d i t u r e of p u b l i c f u n d s t o a s s i s t custodial parents i n enforcing the support o b l i g a t i o n s of a b s e n t p a r e n t s , whether o r n o t the custodial parent is receiving public assistance. Such e f f o r t s a r e a l a u d a b l e attempt t o prevent custodial parents, the overwhelming m a j o r i t y o f w h i c h a r e women, from h a v i n g t o b e a r a l o n e t h e b u r d e n o f a mutual d e c i s i o n t o engage i n s e x u a l r e l a t i o n s 593 P.2d a t 233. . . ." In Salas, the court held f a t h e r was e n t i t l e d t o c o u n s e l , that an indigent putative s u p p l i e d a t t h e expense of the state. Although problem of court has a is of c a s e s a r e now arising on b l o o d t e s t s u n d e r t h e Uniform P a r e n t a g e A c t , set aside the unconstitutional tests number not per that statute se. the requiring The l e g a l results may blood tests significance of possibly the no as blood include the a c c u s e d a s t h e f a t h e r , b u t t h a t s u c h r e s u l t s may p o s i t i v e l y e x c l u d e him a s t h e f a t h e r . number of cases that a Thus, father i t h a s been h e l d has an absolute i n any right to demand a b l o o d t e s t o f t h e m o t h e r and c h i l d , e v e n t o g e t a continuance if reason such that father. Thus, the child test may rights constitutional not yet been positively born exclude for the as the him S t o e c k l (Mich. 1 9 5 6 ) , 78 N.W.2d See People v. the has of the parties elimination of are the reciprocal, statute would 640. a and severely l i m i t t h e r i g h t s of t h e p u t a t i v e f a t h e r . To u n d e r s t a n d t h e p r o c e d u r e i n t h e Uniform P a r e n t a g e Act, particularly necessary to with realize relation the to advances c o n n e c t i o n with blood t e s t s . a r t i c l e explains it is b e e n made in tests, t h a t have For t h i s p u r p o s e , a r e a d i n g o f Current S t a t u s of P a t e r n i t y Testinq, 9 F a m i l y Law Q u a r t e r l y 615 blood by Dr. is (1975), t h e v a r i o u s means o f Chang L i n g Lee, instructive. The testing for genetic markers. Under if the s e c t i o n 40-6-114(4), scientific conclusively father, evidence shows the resulting defendant chance tests, in weighed t h a t he accordance not a with blood have the test been I f , however, is t h e f a t h e r , admissible r e l a t i v e t o the paternity. MCA is p r o v i d e d t h a t from could t h e a c t i o n s h a l l be d i s m i s s e d . is a s t a t i s t i c a l it MCA, the there the blood evidence, are S e c t i o n 40-6-113(3), . I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e i t is a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e h a s n o t been followed. What s h o u l d o c c u r under t h e Uniform P a r e n t a g e Act i s t h a t a f t e r t h e a c t i o n h a s b e e n brought t o d e c l a r e t h e p a t e r n i t y of hearing by way Section 40-6-111, of pretrial MCA. A t t h e c h i l d , an i n f o r m a l proceedings the pretrial should hearing, occur. if any p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n r e f u s e s t o t e s t i f y under o a t h , t h e c o u r t may order him to testify. If he refuses to testify, the court has the power to grant him immunity from all criminal liability on account of the testimony he produce (except for perjury). is required to Section 40-6-111(2), MCA. It is at the pretrial proceeding that the court may order the blood tests. Section 40-6-112, MCA. At that point, therefore, it is assured from the statutory scheme that a prima facie case (the equivalent of probable cause in a criminal proceeding) is established for the ordering of the blood test. It is at the pretrial proceedings that the evidence relating to paternity, including the blood tests, are considered. Section 40-6-114, MCA. Thereafter, there are pretrial recommendations to be made as set forth section 40-6-114(1), MCA. At that point, considers whether or not the case should go on. the in court The statute says : "On the basis of the information produced at the pretrial hearing, the judge or referee conducting the hearing shall evaluate the probability of determining the existence or nonexistence of the father and child relationship in a trial and whether a judicial declaration of the relationship would be in the best interest of the child. On the basis of the evaluation, an appropriate recommendation for settlement shall be made to the parties, which may include any of the following: [options omitted]." Section 40-6-114, MCA. As our discussion has revealed, the mere conclusory allegations by the movant in the petition are insufficient to satisfy the "reasonableness" requirement of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. Section 11, 1972 Montana Constitution. 11, Reasonableness can only be established by an affirmative showing by the movant that there exists a prima facie case against the putative father. After t h i s , a b l o o d t e s t may be t a k e n . t h e Uniform P a r e n t a g e A c t , as m u s t be c o n s t r u e d a s a w h o l e , attack MCA, upon an it r e l a t e s t o t h i s s u b j e c t , and we w i l l section, i.e., not consider section an 40-6-112, t o determine its c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y . w e do c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w However, the isolated Therefore, s t a t u t o r y procedures t o e s t a b l i s h reasonableness p r i o r t o t h e o r d e r i n g of t h e "search" r e n d e r s t h e ordered s e a r c h a violation of the accused's F o u r t h Amendment rights to s e c u r e from " u n r e a s o n a b l e " s e a r c h and a l s o v i o l a t e s A r t . be 11, S e c t i o n 11, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . The w r i t , a s p r a y e d f o r , s h a l l i s s u e : 1. The c o n t e m p t o r d e r of November 2 8 , 1 9 8 0 , by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s h e r e b y v a c a t e d and s e t a s i d e . The c a s e i s r e t u r n e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h 2. instructions to follow the set procedure Uniform P a r e n t a g e A c t a s d i s c u s s e d h e r e i n . section 40-6-111, MCA, this will father, in A s provided require p r e t r i a l proceeding before t h e c o u r t . f a c i e case forth an the in informal I n t h e event a prima i s made showing t h e d e f e n d a n t t o be a p o s s i b l e then an o r d e r defendant to submit defendant refuses p r o p e r l y may be to to the testify, blood the made test. court requiring In may the the event grant him immunity from a l l c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y and t h e r e a f t e r r e q u i r e t h a t he t a k e t h e b l o o d t e s t . 3. A copy of t h i s o p i n i o n , when s e r v e d by t h e C l e r k of t h i s C o u r t , s h a l l p e rf o r m t h e o f f i c e of a formal w r i t . d & #/ . d Justice W e concur: 2A& J, p g ,4 Chief J u s t i c e ILrrniblsL ~ o n d r a b l eJames B. W h e e l i s . i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n of Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n C .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.