No. DA 06-0568 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2007 MT 68N

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. SCOTT ALLEN PRICE, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, In and For the County of Prairie, Cause No. DC 2006-002, Honorable Richard A. Simonton, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Brad L. Arndorfer, Arndorfer Law Firm, P.C., Billings, Montana For Respondent: Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, Pamela P. Collins, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, Helena, Montana Erin T. Inman, Prairie County Attorney, Terry, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: February 28, 2007 Decided: March 13, 2007 Filed:

__________________________________________ ClerkJustice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Para graph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited as precedent. Its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports. ¶2 Scott Allen Price (Price) appeals from th e District Court’s May 8, 2006 Order denying his motion to suppress the results of a blood test taken as a result of his arrest for DUI on December 18, 2004. Price argues on ap peal that he was coerced into giving a blood test although he was afra id of needles, and that his fear of needles was overborne by the arresting officer’s refu sal to give him any alternativ e test knowing that he had a

fear of needles. Price conten ds that he repeatedly asked fo r an alternate test before the blood test was given. Price relies on Nelson v. City of Irvine , 143 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 981, 119 S.Ct. 444, 142 L.Ed.2d 399 (1998); Wessell v. State, Dept. of Justice , 277 Mont. 234, 921 P.2d 264 (1996); and State v. Minkoff , 2002 MT 29, 308 Mont. 248, 42 P.3d 223. ¶3 The State argues that the arresting office r took Price to the Terry, Montana facility because of the location of the stop and the relative distan ces from the stop to Terry, Glendive, and Miles City, and because the arre sting officer wanted to accommodate Price in obtaining a ride from his sister in Terry. The State argues that the court properly found

that Price consented to the blood test and that he did not desire an independent test. The

2State contends that the court’ s findings of fact are based up on substantial evidence and are not otherwise clearly erroneous. ¶4 This Court reviews a district court’s deni al of a motion to suppress to determine whether its findings of fact are clearly e rroneous and whether its interpretation and application of the law is correct. State v. Ellington , 2006 MT 219, ¶ 9, 333 Mont. 411, ¶ 9, 143 P.3d 119, ¶ 9 (citing State v. Pierce , 2005 MT 182, ¶ 12, 328 Mont. 33, ¶ 12, 116 P.3d 817, ¶ 12). ¶5 Having reviewed the record in this matter, we have determ ined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragrap h 3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, which provides for memorandum opin ions. It is manifest on the face of the

briefs and the record before us that the appeal is without merit because the court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and because the legal issues are clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District Court correctly interpreted. ¶6 Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s Order entered May 8, 2006.

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

We Concur:

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY /S/ BRIAN MORRIS /S/ JOHN WARNER /S/ JIM RICE

3