" 

No, 96-140 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1997 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

v. 

ORVAL LEE HENDRICKSON, 

Defendant and Respondent. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Gallatin, 

The Honorable Larry W. Moran, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Susan L. Wordal, City Prosecutor, Bozeman, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Allen Beck, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: May 8, 1997 

Decided: June 10, 1997 

Filed: 

7 Clerk 
Justice W. William Leaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

The State of Montana (State) appeals from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court's 

order dismissing charges of Driving Under the Influence, a violation of § 61-8-401, MCA, 

against Orval Lee Hendrickson (Hendrickson). We reverse in part, affirm in part, and 

remand. 

We address the following issue on appeal: 

Did the District Court err in dismissing the charges because Officer John 

Woodland of the Belgrade Police Department did not have jurisdiction to 

arrest a suspect and continue investigation of the offense within the city limits 

of Bozeman? 

BACKGROUND 

Officer John Woodland (Woodland), a member of the Belgrade Police Department, 

was in Bozeman delivering a prisoner to the Gallatin County Detention Center. While 

traveling through Bozeman, he observed a motorcycle approaching his police vehicle while 

he was stopped at a stop light. Woodland observed the rider, later identified as Hendrickson, 

having difficulty controlling his motorcycle. Woodland followed Hendrickson down Main 

Street to Fifth Street, where Hendrickson stopped at a green light. 

Woodland contacted the Bozeman Police Department and informed the dispatcher that 

he was following a motorcycle with a driver who possibly was intoxicated. After witnessing 

Hendrickson's continued difficulty controlling his vehicle, Woodland advised the Bozeman 

Police Department dispatcher of the situation and asked the dispatcher for assistance. 

2 
Woodland was given authorization by Ed Benz of the Bozeman Police Department to effect 

a traffic stop on Hendrickson. Woodland stopped Hendrickson and momentarily waited for 

assistance. 

While waiting for assistance, Woodland approached the driver and asked a series of 

routine questions, including a request for registration, license and proof of insurance. 

Woodland observed a number of factors indicative of intoxication including slurred speech, 

a strong odor of alcohol, and bloodshot eyes. Shortly after Woodland made these initial 

observations, a Bozeman Police Department patrol car arrived on the scene with uniformed 

officers Steve Keirn (Keirn) and David McManis (McManis). While Keirn exited the vehicle 

McManis set up the video camera in the Bozeman Police Department patrol car. 

While McManis and Keirn watched, Woodland had Hendrickson perform a series of 

field sobriety tests. After the tests were completed, Keirn had Hendrickson perform the 

Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test. Hendrickson was not cooperative and Keirn abandoned the 

test. At the conclusion of these tests, Woodland placed Hendrickson under arrest while Keirn 

secured the motorcycle. Woodland transported Hendrickson to the Gallatin County 

Detention Center. At the Detention Center, Woodland read Hendrickson the Implied. 

Consent Law and asked him if he would submit to a breath test and Hendrickson refused. 

Woodland asked again about an hour later at which time Hendrickson agreed to take the test. 

Although Keirn and McManis were present, Sergeant Mel McCarver authorized Woodland 

to write the citation charging Hendrickson with Driving Under the Influence in violation of 

3 
§ 61-8-401, MCA. Hendrickson was tried and convicted in City Court of Driving Under the 

Influence of Alcohol in violation of § 61-8-401, MCA. He appealed the matter to District 

Court where he filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or, in the alternative, Suppress 

Evidence obtained as a result of the arrest. The District Court dismissed the charges and the 

State appealed. 

DISCUSSION 

The standard of review ofa district court's conclusions of law is whether the court's 

interpretation of the law is correct. Carbon County v. Union Reserve Coal Co. (1995), 271 

Mont. 459, 469,898 P.2d 680,686. 

In Montana, police officers are given authority to arrest a person without an arrest 

warrant pursuant to § 46-6-311(1), MCA, which provides: 

(1) 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. 

An individual citizen may affect an arrest under the following circumstances: 

(1) A private person may arrest another when there is probable cause to 

believe that the person is committing or has committed an offense and the 

existing circumstances require the person's immediate arrest. 

(2) A private person making an arrest shall immediately notify the 

nearest available law enforcement agency or peace officer and give custody of 

the person arrested to the officer or agency. 

Section 46-6-502, MCA. In addition, this Court has held that peace officers do not lose their 

status as private citizens when they are outside oftheir jurisdiction. State v. McDole (1987), 

4 
226 Mont. 169, 172, 734 P.2d 683, 685. Section 46-6-502, MCA, authorizes arrest by 

private citizens when there is probable cause to believe that the person is committing an 

offense. We have held that a peace officer outside his or her jurisdiction can still perform 

an arrest as a private citizen. McDole, 734 P .2d at 685. 

In the present case, the District Court concluded that Woodland was outside his 

jurisdiction as a peace officer and that he exceeded his authority as a private citizen. In 

granting Hendrickson's motion to dismiss, the District Court stated: 

It's clear to me that Officer Woodland was not given any authority to arrest. 

The granting of the authority to make a traffic stop does not make the authority 

to arrest, necessarily. And yet he proceeded in the presence of Bozeman 

police officers to do several things, which would be incident to an arrest: First, 

he arrested the defendant. He did not tum him over to the Bozeman police 

authorities. He thence proceeded to act as a police officer in the sense that he 

went through the various and sundry DUI field sobriety maneuvers. Then he 

took the defendant down to the detention center and then issued a ticket based 

on Belgrade city forms. 

Although the District Court was correct in concluding that Woodland over-stepped his 

authority when he failed to give custody of Hendrickson to the Bozeman City Police once 

Keirn and McManis arrived, Woodland's actions prior to their arrival were within his 

authority as a private citizen. Because § 46-6-502(2) required Woodland to relinquish 

custody to the Bozeman law enforcement authorities, his actions before the arrival of Keirn 

and McManis and after their arrival will be analyzed separately. 

Woodland's authority as a private citizen 

5 
Under § 46-6-502(1), MCA, Woodland was within his authority as a private citizen 

to observe Hendrickson's erratic driving, to perform the traffic stop as requested, and to 

relate his observations of Hendrickson's slurred speech, odor of alcohol and bloodshot eyes. 

In McDole, a Eureka police department officer responded to a call based upon reports of 

possible DUI and leaving the scene of an accident by McDole in the city of Eureka. McDole, 

734 P.2d at 684. After the officer arrived at McDole's residence, outside the city of Eureka, 

McDole walked out of his house and said, "Take me! Take me!" This statement combined 

with the Eureka police officer's own observations led him to believe that McDole may have 

been driving under the influence of alcohol. The Eureka police officer proceeded to arrest 

McDole, take him to the police department and give him a breath test. McDole, 734 P .2d at 

684-85. In McDole, this Court held that a police officer outside his or her jurisdiction has 

not lost his or her status as a citizen. McDole, 734 P.2d at 685. This Court explained "if an 

arrest by a private citizen would be lawful under the existing circumstances, the arrest by an· 

officer out of his jurisdiction would be lawful." McDole, 734 P.2d at 685. As in McDole, 

Woodland was clearly outside his jurisdiction when he stopped Hendrickson. When 

Woodland stopped Hendrickson and observed behavior indicative of intoxication, he was 

acting as a private citizen under the authority of § 46-6-502, MCA. 

Woodland's actions following arrival of Officers Keirn and McManis 

Section 46-6-502(2), MCA, requires a private citizen to immediately notify local 

authorities and relinquish custody to the officer or agency with jurisdiction. In support of its 

6 
argument that Woodland acted within his authority in conducting field sobriety tests, 

effecting an arrest and requesting a breathalyser, the State relies on our decision in Maney 

v. State (1992), 255 Mont. 270, 842 P.2d 704, in which we affirmed an arrest where a 

Chinook City police officer, after observing Maney driving erratically in town, followed him 

out of town (outside the officer's jurisdiction) where he observed further erratic driving. He 

then stopped Maney and conducted field sobriety tests in the presence of a sheriffs deputy 

who had arrived on the scene. Maney, 842 P.2d at 705. The Chinook city police officer then 

transported Maney to the Blaine County Sheriffs Office in Chinook where he requested that 

Maney take a breathalyser. Maney refused. His license was suspended as a result. Maney,· 

842 P.2d at 705. On appeal, Maney relied on § 46-6-502(2), MeA, for his contention that 

the officer's arrest and request for breathalyser were illegal due to failure of the police officer 

to relinquish custody of Maney to the sheriffs deputy who had jurisdiction outside the city 

limits. Maney, 842 P.2d at 706. We determined that the officer making the arrest was still 

a peace officer for purposes of the implied consent statute even though he made the arrest as 

a private citizen. Maney, 842 P.2d at 707. We noted that the police officer immediately 

notified the Blaine County Sheriffs Office and promptly transported Maney to the sheriffs 

office for booking. "As soon as Officer Gomke entered the Chinook city limits he was 

within his jurisdiction and it would make no sense to require Officer Gomke to transfer his 

prisoner to another officer who also had jurisdiction." Maney, 842 P .2d at 706. 

7 
The Maney decision does not specifically address the question of whether Officer 

Gomke's authority as a private citizen ceased upon the arrival of the sheriff's deputy, 

although the decision, by necessary implication, certainly suggests that his authority did not 

cease. Rather, Officer Gomke was allowed to continue with the field sobriety tests in the 

presence of the sheriff's deputy, to then transport Maney to the City of Chinook where 

Gomke had jurisdiction, and then to request a breathalyser. Maney, 842 P .2d at 706. We 

now conclude that this Court's holding in Maney is too broad in the scope of authority that 

it grants to a citizen's arrest pursuant to § 46-6-502, MCA. Absent any exigent 

circumstances, when a citizen or out-of-jurisdiction peace officer, acting as a citizen, makes 

a stop or arrest, his or her authority to proceed ceases once a peace officer with jurisdiction 

arrives at the scene. 

Woodland exceeded his authority as a citizen when, after the arrival of the Bozeman 

police officers, instead of relinquishing custody to the officers, he conducted field sobriety 

tests, detained and arrested Hendrickson and requested that he submit to a breathalyser. We 

conclude that any evidence obtained by Woodland (including the initial refusal and/or results 

of the breathalyser test) after the police officers arrived was obtained illegally and must be 

suppressed as requested by Hendrickson. To the extent that Maney suggests a contrary 

result, it is overruled. 

The State contends that Woodland had authority to assist peace officers from other 

jurisdictions. Section 46-6-402, MCA, provides that a peace officer making an arrest may 

8 
, . 

command the aid of persons 18 years of age or older. In the present case, however, the 

Bozeman police officers did not command aid in "making a lawful arrest." Rather, it was 

Woodland acting as a citizen who was seeking assistance. In State v. Williams (1995), 273 

Mont. 459, 904 P.2d 1019, this Court held that a peace officer from one jurisdiction could 

assist a peace officer in another ifhis assistance were requested. Williams, 904 P .2d at 1022-

23. However, unlike the facts before this Court in Williams, there were no exigent 

circumstances requiring Woodland to engage in investigating and charging Hendrickson. 

See Williams, 904 P.2d at 1022. The Bozeman police officers arrived on the scene a 

relatively short time after Woodland had stopped Hendrickson and had already commenced 

the field sobriety testing and arrest process. These officers were fully capable of conducting 

the investigation and arrest on their own. This is not a situation where officers within their 

jurisdiction were pursuing a suspect or investigating a crime and, due to exigent 

circumstances, called upon Officer Woodland's assistance. Rather, this situation was 

initiated by Woodland as a result of Woodland's observations while outside his jurisdiction. 

Section 46-6-502(2), MCA, required Woodland to immediately notify the local authorities 

and relinquish custody of Hendrickson to Bozeman City Police. Indeed, beyond making the 

traffic stop, Woodland was not compelled to render assistance in this case. Once Keirn and 

McManis of the Bozeman City Police Department arrived, they had the authority and duty, 

to conduct any investigation and arrest. 

9 
We hold that Woodland acted outside the authority given to a private citizen under 

§ 46-6-502, MCA, by failing to tum Hendrickson over to the Bozeman City Police once 

Officers Keirn and McManis arrived on the scene. Woodland had no authority to conduct 

field sobriety tests, detain and arrest Hendrickson or request a breathalyser test once the 

Bozeman City Police were available to complete these tasks. Therefore, we affirm the 

District Court's conclusion that "[t]he field sobriety tests and so forth were illegal and 

unlawful." We hold that all evidence obtained by Woodland after Keirn and McManis had 

arrived on the scene must be suppressed. However, the fact that Woodland's arrest of 

Hendrickson was illegal and that evidence obtained incident to that arrest is inadmissable, 

does not mean that the charges against Hendrickson must be dismissed. 

An illegal arrest has no impact on a subsequent prosecution based upon evidence not 

tainted by the illegality. The State can pursue a prosecution despite the manner of the arrest 

so long as the evidence remaining is otherwise admissible. State v. Sor-Lokken (1991), 247 

Mont. 343, 348,805 P.2d 1367,1370-71; State v. Woods (1983), 203 Mont. 401, 662 P.2d 

579. Woods cited United States v. Crews (1980), 445 U.S. 463, 100 S.Ct. 1244,63 L.Ed.2d 

537, in which the Court stated: "An illegal arrest, without more, has never been viewed as 

a bar to subsequent prosecution, nor as a defense to a valid conviction." Crews, 445 U.S. at 

474. The illegality of the detention does not deprive the government of the opportunity to 

prove guilt through the introduction of evidence wholly untainted by police misconduct. 

Crews, 445 U.S. at 475. The fact that Woodland exceeded his authority by not relinquishing 

10 
custody to the Bozeman City Police does not mean that his observations prior to that time 

cannot form the basis for a charge against Hendrickson. Woodland's Affidavit of Probable 

Cause sets forth in great detail his observations of Hendrickson's difficulties while trying to 

maneuver his motorcycle in traffic, his slurred speech, red and watery eyes and the smell of 

alcohol on his breath. Even when the statement in the Affidavit that Hendrickson failed 5 

of 5 field sobriety tests is excised, the balance of the Affidavit is sufficient to establish 

probable cause to charge Hendrickson with DUI. 

Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's conclusion that the tests conducted by 

Woodland were illegal and the results of those tests cannot be used against Hendrickson. 

However, we reverse the District Court's dismissal of charges against Hendrickson and 

remand this matter to the District Court for trial on the merits. 

Justice 

We concur: 

11