STATE v WILLIAMS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 95-054 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1995 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BILLY DALE WILLIAMS, Defendant APPEAL FROM: and Appellant. District Court of the In and for the County The Honorable Kenneth Sixteenth of Powder R. Wilson, Judicial River, Judge District, presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: J. B. Wheatcroft, Attorney Miles City, Montana For at Law, Respondent: Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Brenda Nordlund, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Powder Coleen Magera, Broadus, Montana Submitted River County on Briefs: Decided: Filed: Attorney, August 17, 1995 October 25, 1995 Justice Terry N. Trieweiler The defendant, in the Justice influence 1994, against Court for allowed in violation County MCA. On June Williams Judicial was District appeal to the denial We affirm the order of on the The issue on appeal the District his blood the the District Powder River County. test results condition suppression suppress Court err alcohol District of 1, that he be motion. is: Did the the alcohol plea his to in blood of convicted conviction suppress a guilty by complaint under Sixteenth motion Court. driving his his the 5 61-8-401, of trial, of with He appealed he entered to River opinion was charged him. after was denied, the Williams, Powder a nonjury the However, Dale of alcohol following charge Billy Court of delivered when it test Court. denied Williams's motion to results? FACTUAL BACKGROUND On Saturday, Dale Williams River Sheriff after the Powder the Dave accident ditch. 1993, 16, was involved County. Deputy October in River a single County Lancaster was vehicle at seated in the Billy in Brett the and discovered 11 p.m., accident Undersheriff arrived was reported Williams at approximately Tabolt scene ten Powder minutes Williams's passenger and car seat in of the vehicle. 1n an effort Tabolt Williams s spoke eyes to with determine him were red at the the extent accident and watery 2 of scene. and "could Williams's injuries, He observed smell an odor that of an alcoholic beverage on his breath." conversation, and on several to extinguish his cigarette one. of these Several After the he spoke Montana Highway Paul Hazelton other arrived Tabolt of asked their Williams to light another unheeded. Tabolt requested to that accident scene. "including to Hazelton, an alcoholic the course him not In response at observations were Williams, Patrol. the occasions, and admonished requests with During the assistance request, from Patrolman Tabolt reported observation of the his odor of beverage." By the Williams City had Holy already Rosary Department Hazelton time at Montana implied Kevin October Krausz Rosary himself and Officer Paul the Miles Miles City Police to inform law investigation and to obtain and left a blood the accident a.m. Sunday Holy to the accident, be dispatched consent his the radioed the concluded of ambulance an officer 12:55 On scene by Hazelton Hospital. Hazelton 17, of the Hospital told Hazelton with [Williams's] breath." and Williams 1993, Miles at City and met with Williams conversation Williams, transported that sample. the the requested of Officer been at and Williams scene arrived that of the Krausz Police read consented to 3 acting at the implied a blood the detect alcohol at identified request of During Patrol. "did a.m., arrived Krausz Highway Krausz 12:50 Department Williams. he was Montana Williams, approximately his alcohol consent content on form to (BAC) A registered test. blood in the hospital emergency room drew the a.m. and sample. Hazelton arrived interviewed odor of seatbelt, that the 3 a.m., he arresting Krausz. Test Williams's Court, and alcohol test. Hazelton and procedures was, that Krausz accident within make violated had had not five miles a warrantless Montana's failure test prior to appear for form. City law to Police advisory Williams's wear a Department, form blood as sample after his level was .09 mg./lOO ml. the from blood. before his the to had in not Powder suppress supporting forth not to two hours improperly therefore, consent a motion Krausz as set beers for an breath." that trial In four notices Miles smell Williams's to blood the "could indicated filed Williams to collected alcohol his Mr. and for 1:50 also three alcohol implied results to from Williams request went the blood Prior the Hazelton officer coming of at Hazelton time, issued influence signed Hospital he had consumed and signed At that Hazelton under Rosary beverage admitted driving Holy At an alcoholic accident. where at Williams. Williams his nurse the brief, with obtained. over and that the arrest. These implied consent 4 of city there two law. the limits was not errors, Justice his blood contended the Specifically, had jurisdiction thereof, results that implied MCA, and that 5 61-8-402, within County Williams complied occurred River accident, the consent BAC sample Williams matter of argued because Miles probable Williams the City or cause to asserted, That charged motion was denied, on June Williams District 1, were based on the where considered The to pursuant to court issues issues found the Sixteenth by the charge renewed of his guilty as there consent to law, been pending him suppress, probable administer cause. cause the and BAC and denied the guilty plea, and test motion. conditional sentence to and probable had and Judicial against motion jurisdiction Williams Williams's of Williams raised that implied accepted found to conviction Williams arrest the imposition all same two Court authority his denovo. District court 1994. appealed Court and the Williams's appeal to this The stayed Court. DISCUSSION Did the his suppress The motion District blood standard to Court alcohol of suppress clearly as a matter is 860 P.2d 89, to the facts 94. determine correct as a matter Williams to claims that law. of contends the the law. that was BAC results the motion (1993), to 860 the P.2d at a are correctly 181, 188, stipulated is conclusions District erroneous review of fact were submitted our court's of 260 Mont. parties Flack, denial findings findings Therefore, the court's court's those case, whether Williams's a district Statev.Flack Court. only suppress for whether this District we must motion of denied results? whether and In when it test review erroneous, applied err plenary and of law were denial of his 92. Court's for 5 reasons. First, he have should three been suppressed because he to the District and the Court, District Williams's Court motion. basis for his from raising 741 P.2d Williams 1339, not to placed that failure to the on appeal. arrest include District suppress before Statev.Redfern 1340-41. his address Williams's motion it did had not See&o question (1987), at when it this denied issue Court 228 Mont. § 46-20-104(2), issue, as a bars 311, him 313, MCA. LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE Williams arrest him claims that purposes Montana's MCA. for implied Krausz of the did implied consent law not have consent probable law, provides, in cause to § 61-8-402(l), pertinent part: A person who operates or is in actual physical control of a vehicle upon ways of this state open to the public is considered to have given consent . . to a test or tests of the person's blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining any measured amount or detected presence of alcohol or drugs in the person's body if arrested bv officer for driving or for being in actual a peace physical control of a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or a combination of the two. Section MCA (emphasis 61-8-402(l), The implied before its consent provisions law become added). requires an arrest operative. by a peace Section officer 46-6-311(l), MCA, provides: A peace officer may arrest a person when a warrant has not been issued if the officer has probable cause to believe that the person is committing an offense or that the person has committed an offense and existing circumstances require immediate arrest. We have long held that the probable cause requirement satisfied: [I]f at within the the time of officer's arrest the personal 7 facts and circumstances knowledge, or upon is information imparted to him by a reliable source, sufficient to warrant a reasonable person to believe the suspect has committed an offense. (1994) , 267 Mont. Santeev.State v. state (1992) , 255 Williams Tabolt and Lancaster office to 1137, the chain sources, to Officer Krausz, probable It Mont. there 520, courts well is conveyed 792 should 1, evaluate officer of who performs In this had been the case, observations, Williams. the act the communicated of to in vehicle in by observed further that breath had the he repeatedly Tabolt reported to Krausz odor via had admonish Miles red our basis that only the P.2d cause at 3. which to the own arrest watery highway. eyes, Tabolt to light and in Tabolt that reported his that a cigarette. who in turn dispatcher. Prior to 8 the Krausz's to Hazelton, City that of of 792 242 who was seated of not , policy with beverage. Williams observations the side (1990) and Hazelton Williams, the of an alcoholic had to his Williams Tabolt determine State than probable observed may to the combination sufficient we officer Boland, of the decisions, is '1on arresting." Krause, a ditch it rather personally a wrecked prior Bolandv. cause police dispatch establish officer fact, observations established Tabolt In City Miles Officers an arresting to arrest. probable information our (citing&s from to another 3. 831 1141) indirect on by 829, to the that cause P.2d of too Based probable 524, collective was established information on whether is 883 P.d Hazelton cause. disagree. them 841 P.2d Officer requisite rely 261, that contends 307, 254, Mont. 304, are that conveyed arresting Williams, Krausz drinking personally confirmed when he 'I [detected] We conclude that alcohol Krausz he obtained information through a chain reliable observed during that the his Krausz to believe of odor of Williams to Williams and Williams because the to warrant had been driving while Williams been he drinking personally Williams's breath hospital. We hold a reasonable under been breath." arrest had from at had Williams's beverage evidence Williams cause sources, with had sufficient that that an alcoholic conversation on Mr. had probable because of that the person influence alcohol. LACK OF JURISDICTION Williams arrest asserts him because limits city or MCA. determinative of of, Montana Highway Section and did not did not occur five However, Krausz's based Krausz accident within § 7-32-4301, request his that that authority on the the as § 7-32-4301, because authority jurisdiction within thereof, miles we hold have of to Miles City required MCA, by is not he was acting at the Paul of the Hazelton Patrol. 44-11-101, MCA, provides: A peace officer or any law enforcement entity of any county or municipality or a state government law enforcement entity may request the assistance of a peace officer from another law enforcement entity within the state of Montana. A peace officer, while in the jurisdiction of the reauestinq officer or entitv and while on such reuuest for assistance, has the same powers, duties, rights, Drivileqes, and immunities as a peace officer of the requestins entity and is under the authoritv of the reuuestinq officer or entity. (Emphasis added.) 9 Hazelton's request to the he for call to assistance the pursuant request, identified was acting on behalf Hazelton had § 44-l-1003, Krausz's We affirm Williams's We concur: to he motion the dispatcher MCA. to Williams, Montana Krausz had Highway the statutory authority Williams District to Court suppress conclude pursuant to and hold was correct to the Since request had MCA. court's as a matter to Krausz 5 44-11-101, that that pursuant that a responded Patrol. accident we was and explained Williams's Therefore, arrest the Police over assistance. jurisdiction of of City 5 44-11-101, himself jurisdiction MCA, Miles denial of law.
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.
