Case Title: STATE v LOGAN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 84-430

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-08-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 84-430 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 5 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , -vs- JOHN WILLIAM LOGAN, D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of G a l l a t i n , T h e H o n o r a b l e Joseph B. G a r y , Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For A p p e l l a n t : H. C h a r l e s S t a h m e r , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t : Hon. M i k e G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a A. M i c h a e l Salvagni, C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a ; M a r t y L a m b e r t , D e p u t y C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : June 28, 1 9 8 5 D e c i d e d : A u g u s t 3 0 , 1 9 8 5 -.- . ' 4' k clerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. John Logan 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 Court o f t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t t o have h i s d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e r e i n s t a t e d . H e a p p e a l s from t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r denying h i s motion t o r e i n s t a t e h i s d r i v i n g p r i v i l e g e s . On November 16, 1983, John Logan was a r r e s t e d by Deputy Cashell o f t h e G a l l a t i n County S h e r i f f ' s Department f o r suspicion of d r i v i n g while under t h e i n f l u e n c e . Deputy C a s h e l l advised John Logan o f t h e Implied Consent Law o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana and informed him t h a t he needed t o t a k e t h e b r e a t h test. Logan requested t h a t he be allowed t o t a k e a blood test i n s t e a d o f t h e b r e a t h test. Deputy C a s h e l l re- fused him t h e r i g h t t o t a k e t h e blood test, a t h i s own ex- pense. Deputy C a s h e l l s t a t e d t h a t Logan f i r s t must t a k e t h e b r e a t h test i n accordance w i t h § 61-8-402, MCA. Logan's i n s i s t e n c e on t a k i n g t h e blood test f i r s t was construed a s a r e f u s a l t o t a k e t h e b r e a t h test, by O f f i c e r Cashell. Logan a p p e a l s t h e D i s t r i c t Court r e f u s a l t o r e i n s t a t e h i s d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e r a i s i n g t h e following i s s u e : Whether t h e requirement imposed by § 61-8-402 (3) , MCA, t h a t a l l persons a r r e s t e d f o r s u s p i c i o n o f 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 o f a l c o h o l be forced t o t a k e t h e b r e a t h test b e f o r e t h e blood test, i s a d e n i a l o f o u r c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o due process. Appellant argues t h a t he was denied due p r o c e s s because he was n o t allowed t o have a blood test. However, t h e r e i s no evidence i n t h e record t h a t defendant was p r e j u d i c e d i n h i s a b i l i t y t o defend. I n f a c t , defendant could have submit- t e d t o a blood test i n o r d e r t o r e f u t e t h e b r e a t h test i f t h e r e was a d i f f e r e n c e . Defendant chose n o t t o do s o b u t r a t h e r chose t o t a k e no test because t h e o f f i c e r i n s i s t e d he t a k e a b r e a t h test f i r s t . Under t h e s e circumstances defen- d a n t cannot be heard t o complain. The i s s u e o f whether asking f o r a blood test and r e f u s - i n g a b r e a t h test c o n s t i t u t e s a r e f u s a l under 5 61-8-402, MCA, is resolved i n S t a t e v. Christopherson (Mont. 1985), P.2d - I - St.Rep. , decided t h i s day. S u f f i c e it t o say t h a t r e f u s i n g t h e requested test c o n s t i t u t e s a r e f u s a l f o r purposes o f suspension. The S t a t e a l s o r a i s e s t h e i s s u e o f whether t h i s Court h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o review t h i s c a s e because t h e n o t i c e o f appeal d i d n o t s p e c i f y t h a t t h e appeal was t a k e n from t h e motion t o r e i n s t a t e t h e d r i v i n g p r i v i l e g e s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t . Apparently, t h e a p p e l l a n t argued t h e c r i m i n a l m a t t e r , t h e charge o f D U I , along w i t h t h i s c i v i l m a t t e r a t t h e D i s - t r i c t Court l e v e l . H e t h e n made a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e criminal c a s e and a motion t o r e i n s t a t e h i s d r i v i n g p r i v i l e g e ( c i v i l m a t t e r ) . The D i s t r i c t Court i s s u e d an o r d e r t h a t denied t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s and denied h i s motion t o r e i n s t a t e h i s d r i v i n g p r i v i l e g e s . The a p p e l l a n t f i l e d a n o t i c e o f appeal t h a t r e f e r r e d o n l y t o t h e motion t o dismiss ( t h e c r i m i n a l m a t t e r ) . The S t a t e contends t h a t a n o t i c e o f appeal d e a l i n g w i t h t h e c i v i l c a s e has n o t been f i l e d w i t h t h i s Court and t h i s Court does n o t have j u r i s d i c - t i o n t o c o n s i d e r t h e appeal. W e f i n d t h e appeal timely. Although a p p e l l a n t does n o t s p e c i f y t h e p a r t o f t h e District Court o r d e r t h a t he i s appealing, he does s t a t e t h a t he i s appealing t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r dated August 16, 1984, which i s t h e same o r d e r t h a t denied a p p e l l a n t ' s motion t o r e i n s t a t e h i s d r i v i n g p r i v i l e g e . That i s s u f f i c i e n t n o t i c e o f appeal o f t h e c i v i l i s s u e . We affirm the District Court order denying appellant's motion to reinstate his driving privileges. We concur: . , , -