96-604

 No. 96-604

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

1997

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff, Appellant, and Cross-Respondent,

 v.

WILLIAM STEPHEN STRIZICH,

 Defendant, Respondent, and Cross-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,

 In and for the County of Cascade,

 The Honorable Thomas M. McKittrick, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 For Appellant:

 Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General;

 Micheal S. Wellenstein, Assistant Attorney General;

 Helena, Montana

 David Gliko, Great Falls City Attorney; Great Falls, Montana

 For Respondent:

 Michael W. Cotter and Patricia O'Brien Cotter; 

 Cotter & Cotter, P.C.; Great Falls, Montana

 Thomas E. Boland, Attorney at Law; Great Falls, Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: May 8, 1997

 Decided: November 25, 1997

Filed:

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (1 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

 __________________________________________

 Clerk

Justice Terry N. Trieweiler delivered the Opinion of the Court.

 The defendant, William Strizich, was charged by complaint filed in the City 

Court

of Great Falls with a first offense of driving under the influence of alcohol in 

violation

of õ 61-8-401(1)(a), MCA. He pled not guilty to the charge against him and his case 

was

scheduled for trial. Prior to trial in the City Court, the State moved in limine 

for an

order to determine the admissibility of specified evidence. When the City Court 

held the

evidence inadmissible, the State appealed to the District Court for a trial de 

novo. Prior

to trial in the District Court, the State made the same pretrial motions and the 

District

Court also excluded the proffered evidence. The State appeals the District Court's

pretrial order excluding evidence of statements made by Strizich to the investigating

officer. Strizich cross-appeals from the District Court's denial of his motion to 

dismiss

for failure to provide him with a timely trial in compliance with õ 46-13-401(2), 

MCA. 

We reverse the District Court's denial of Strizich's motion to dismiss and, 

therefore,

decline to discuss the issue raised by the State on appeal.

 We limit our consideration in this matter to the following issue:

 Did the District Court err when it denied the defendant's motion to dismiss 

based

on the State's failure to comply with õ 46-13-401(2), MCA, which required trial of 

the

charges against the defendant within six months from the date that he entered his 

plea?

 PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 On November 4, 1995, the defendant, William Strizich, was stopped, arrested, and

issued a notice to appear and complaint for driving under the influence of alcohol in

violation of õ 61-8-401(1)(a), MCA. He appeared in the City Court of Great Falls on

November 6, 1995, and pled not guilty to that charge.

 Strizich's case was set for trial in the City Court on February 29, 1996. 

However,

two weeks prior to trial, the State moved for a continuance of the trial based on the

unavailability of one of its witnesses. The trial was then continued to May 2, 

1996. 

 On April 11, 1996, the State filed several motions in limine. In one of those

motions, the State asked the City Judge to determine prior to trial that statements 

made

by Strizich after he was stopped on the night of his arrest were admissible as 

evidence. 

In a second motion, the State asked the City Judge to determine prior to trial 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (2 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

whether

results from a preliminary breath test (PBT), sometimes referred to in the record as 

a

preliminary alcohol screening test (PAST), are admissible at trial. A PBT was

administered to Strizich by the investigating officer, Christopher Hickman, by use 

of a

portable device known as an Alco-Sensor III at the scene of his arrest on November 

4. 

 On April 23, 1996, the City Judge, Nancy Luth, held that pursuant to õ 61-8-

409(2), MCA, read in the context of Title 61, Chapter 8, part 4, the results of a 

PBT are

intended to assist in the determination of probable cause only and not to be 

admitted "as

substantive evidence in the State's case in chief." She therefore denied the 

State's motion

to allow admission of these results as evidence. She issued no order regarding the 

State's

other motion in limine because on April 24, 1996, the State filed a notice of appeal 

to the

District Court of the Eighth Judicial District in Cascade County from the City 

Court's

order denying its motion to admit evidence of PBT results. In its notice of appeal, 

the

State referred to Judge Luth's order as an order "suppressing evidence" and based its

appeal on õõ 46-17-311 and 46-20-103(2)(e), MCA. 

 On May 1, 1996, the State filed the same motions in limine in the District Court

that it had filed in City Court. On May 10, Strizich moved the District Court to 

dismiss

the charges against him pursuant to õ 46-13-401(2), MCA, for failure of the State to 

try

him within six months from the date on which he entered his plea. The uncontroverted

evidence in support of his motion was that he had done nothing to postpone his date 

of

trial and that the State had no good cause for delay beyond six months, other than 

its

interest in appealing the City Court's denial of its motion in limine.

 In response to Strizich's motion to dismiss, the State argued that pursuant to

õõ 46-17-311 and 46-20-103(2)(e), MCA, it had a right to appeal to the district court

from a city court order "suppressing evidence"; that the City Court's order denying 

its

motion in limine regarding PBT evidence was, in effect, an order suppressing 

evidence;

and that, pursuant to this Court's decision in State v. Bullock (1995), 272 Mont. 

361, 901

P.2d 61, since city court jurisdiction had been exhausted within six months, õ 46-13-

401(2), MCA, had been satisfied. 

 On July 3, 1996, the District Court denied Strizich's motion to dismiss. Its 

order

was based on its conclusion that the City Court's order denying the State's motion in

limine was, in effect, an order to "suppress evidence" and, therefore, pursuant to 

our

decision in Bullock, that õ 46-13-401(2), MCA, had been complied with. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (3 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

 On August 29, 1996, the District Court denied the State's motions in limine

regarding Strizich's statements and evidence of PBT results. It held that Strizich's

statements were made after his arrest without the benefit of Miranda advice; it also 

held

that PBT results, when conducted in the field, were inherently unreliable and were

intended neither by statute nor administrative rule for admission as substantive 

evidence

in the State's case.

 On September 3, 1996, the State filed a notice of appeal from both the District

Court's order regarding Strizich's admissions and the order regarding PBT evidence. 

However, the State has since abandoned its appeal from the District Court's 

exclusion of

PBT evidence.

 On September 6, 1996, Strizich filed a cross-appeal from the District Court's 

order

dated July 3, 1996, which denied his motion to dismiss for failure to timely try him 

in

accordance with õ 46-13-401(2), MCA. 

 Because our disposition is based upon our conclusions regarding Strizich's right

to a timely trial pursuant to statute, we need not discuss the remaining issue 

raised by the

State's appeal. We confine our discussion to the following issue:

 Did the District Court err when it denied the defendant's motion to dismiss 

based

on the State's failure to comply with õ 46-13-401(2), MCA, which required trial of 

the

charges against the defendant within six months from the date that he entered his 

plea?

 DISCUSSION

 The district court's denial of a motion to dismiss is based on a legal 

conclusion

which we review to determine if it was correct. State v. Bullock (1995), 272 Mont. 

361,

368, 901 P.2d 61, 66.

 Our analysis of the District Court's decision to deny Strizich's motion to 

dismiss

must necessarily begin with õ 46-13-401(2), MCA, which provides that:

 After the entry of a plea upon a misdemeanor charge, the court,

unless good cause to the contrary is shown, shall order the prosecution to

be dismissed, with prejudice, if a defendant whose trial has not been

postponed upon the defendant's motion is not brought to trial within 6

months.

 In this case, Strizich's trial date in City Court was not postponed by any 

motion

made by Strizich, and the State admitted, at hearings before the District Court, 

that there

was no good cause for delay beyond the May 2, 1996, trial date, other than its 

desire to

appeal the City Court's decision that PBT results were not admissible evidence.

 The District Court based its decision to deny Strizich's motion to dismiss on 

our

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (4 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

decision in Bullock. In that case, the defendants were charged in justice court with

unlawfully killing and possessing a game animal. However, the justice court 

suppressed

all of the State's evidence pertaining to one defendant on constitutional grounds, 

and

dismissed the State's charges against the other defendant. The State then appealed 

to the

district court for a trial de novo pursuant to õõ 46-17-311 and 46-20-103, MCA. When

the defendants had not been tried in district court within six months from the date 

on

which they entered their plea, they moved to dismiss pursuant to õ 46-13-401(2), 

MCA. 

That motion was denied. On appeal from that denial, this Court pointed out that in 

State

v. Mantz (1994), 269 Mont. 135, 887 P.2d 251, we held that the statute requiring

misdemeanors be tried within six months is inapplicable to those situations "in 

which the

case comes from justice court to a trial de novo in district court." Mantz, 269 

Mont. at

138, 887 P.2d at 253. In Bullock, we stated that:

 While this Court was not unanimous in its conclusion that õ 46-13-

401(2), MCA, does not apply to misdemeanor charges appealed to the

district court (see Mantz, Justices Trieweiler and Hunt dissenting), all

members do concur that for purposes of applying that rule there is no basis

for distinguishing between cases appealed after trial in the justice court and

cases appealed from disposition in some other fashion in justice court. So

long as the justice court jurisdiction is exhausted within six months by some

action which authorizes appeal de novo to the district court, õ 46-13-401(2),

MCA, has been satisfied.

Bullock, 272 Mont. at 369, 901 P.2d at 66-67 (emphasis added).

 We noted that õ 46-20-103, MCA, authorizes the State to appeal from justice 

court

to district court any order or judgment which has the effect of (a) dismissing a 

case, or

(e) suppressing evidence. Bullock, 272 Mont. at 369, 901 P.2d at 66. For these 

reasons,

we concluded that justice court jurisdiction had been exhausted in that case within 

six

months by some action which authorized appeal de novo to the district court and,

therefore, that the motion to dismiss on the basis of õ 46-13-401(2), MCA, had been

properly denied. Bullock, 272 Mont. at 369, 901 P.2d at 67.

 The issue in this case is, then, whether City Court jurisdiction was exhausted

within six months "by some action which authorizes appeal de novo to the district 

court." 

Bullock, 272 Mont. at 369, 901 P.2d at 66-67. The State contends that that 

requirement

was satisfied when the City Court denied its motion in limine to admit evidence of 

PBT

results and, in effect, "suppressed evidence." The defendant contends that the term

"suppressing evidence" is a term of art which does not apply to the exclusion of 

evidence

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (5 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

based on the rules of evidence and, therefore, that there was no action by the City 

Court

which authorized appeal de novo to the District Court.

 The State's position finds support in several prior decisions of this Court. We

conclude, however, that our own statutory framework and the better-reasoned authority

from other jurisdictions support the position of the defendant.

 In State v. Carney (1986), 219 Mont. 412, 714 P.2d 532, the defendant was being

tried for driving under the influence of alcohol when, during the second day of 

trial, the

district court sustained the defendant's objection to blood samples because the 

State had

failed to establish a proper chain of custody. The State advised the district court 

of its

desire to appeal that issue; the jury was dismissed; and a notice of appeal was 

filed. We

held that based on double jeopardy considerations it was necessary to distinguish 

between

appeals prior to the commencement of trial and appeals taken during the course of 

trial

for purposes of applying õ 46-20-103, MCA. We then interpreted subsection (e) as

follows:

 We conclude that the order sustaining the objection to the admission

of evidence did not constitute "suppressing evidence" as defined in Section

46-20-103, MCA. We hold that the District Court order ruling the blood

samples inadmissible for failure to lay a proper foundation was not an

appealable order.

Carney, 219 Mont. at 418, 714 P.2d at 536.

 We then held that because there was no "manifest necessity" for the appeal, 

further

trial of the defendant would constitute double jeopardy. Carney, 219 Mont. at 418, 

714

P.2d at 536.

 We next discussed the term "suppressing evidence" in State v. T.W. (1986), 220

Mont. 280, 715 P.2d 428. In that case, the State filed an interlocutory appeal from 

a

district court order granting the defendant's motion in limine which precluded the 

State

from using the defendant's youth court records as evidence and from offering evidence

of prior offenses allegedly committed by the defendant while he was a minor. After

asking the parties in that case to brief the issue of whether a pretrial order 

denying the

State's motion in limine was an appealable order, as provided for by õ 46-20-103, 

MCA,

we held that it was. We distinguished appeals from pretrial rulings from those taken

during the course of trial. We held that:

 There is an important distinction between interlocutory appeals on

pre-trial rulings and those taken in the course of the trial. . . . No jeopardy

attaches here, as the jury had not yet been sworn. Because there is no

double jeopardy problem in this case the ruling is appealable.

T.W., 220 Mont. at 287, 715 P.2d at 432 (citation omitted).

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (6 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

 We followed T.W. in State v. Yarns (1992), 252 Mont. 45, 826 P.2d 543. 

Although two members, in dissent, cautioned that 

there is a significant difference between the "suppression of evidence" and

an evidentiary ruling which excludes material or information which is

offered but is neither relevant to nor probative of the issues in the case.

 . . . .

 The effect of the majority's decision is to provide the State with the

option of divesting justice courts of jurisdiction to try misdemeanor cases

whenever the State chooses to do so. 

Yarns, 252 Mont. at 53-55, 826 P.2d at 548-49 (Trieweiler, J., and Hunt, J., 

dissenting).

 Since our decision in Yarns, several other jurisdictions have also considered 

this

same issue. In State v. Dwyer (Mo. Ct. App. 1992), 847 S.W.2d 102, the state 

appealed

from the trial court's order in limine excluding prior acts of the defendant. 

Missouri, like

Montana, permits the state by statute to appeal "from any order or judgment the

substantive effect of which results in . . . suppressing evidence." Mo. Rev. Stat. õ

547.200.1(2) (1986). However, the Court of Appeals for the Western District of

Missouri held that:

 The in limine order which is sought to be appealed here is not an

order "suppressing" evidence or having that substantial effect. Section

547.200.1 was not intended to allow the appeal of this order in limine. 

State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184, 185 (Mo.App.1984).

 The "suppression" of evidence is not the same thing as the exclusion

of evidence on the basis of some rule of evidence. Suppression is a term

used for evidence which is not objectionable as violating any rule of

evidence, but which has been illegally obtained. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b),

Section 542.296, RSMo 1986, Black's Law Dictionary ("motion to

suppress," "suppression of evidence") 914, 1291 (5th Ed.1979). Evidence

may be highly relevant and admissible as against all objections based upon

the rules of evidence (i.e., hearsay, best evidence, parol evidence,

relevancy, privileged communications, and the like), but yet may be

suppressed because it was illegally obtained. Id.

 . . . .

 The position advanced by the State would allow the State to appeal

any in limine order of the trial court which ruled inadmissible any evidence

which the State proposed to offer. The State could thus by a single appeal,

or by repeated appeals, secure appellate rulings upon the admissibility of all

its evidence. The statute has no such meaning. It is intended to apply only

to those orders "suppressing" evidence; it should not be broadened by

intendment to cover in limine orders. State v. Holzschuh, 670 S.W.2d 184

(Mo.App. 1984).

Dwyer, 847 S.W.2d at 103-04.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (7 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

 In State v. Shade (Nev. 1994), 867 P.2d 393, the state appealed from the 

district

court's order in limine excluding evidence of the defendant's prior bad act on the 

basis

that the evidence was irrelevant. The trial court's order was not based on any 

allegation

that the evidence was illegally obtained. The state's appeal was based on a Nevada

statute which permitted the state to appeal from district court orders which 

suppressed

evidence. The Nevada Supreme Court noted that while there was no Nevada statute

defining "motions to suppress," "suppression" had been defined by numerous courts. 

It

cited decisions from appellate courts in Illinois, Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, North

Dakota, and Virginia for the principle that "suppression" of evidence relates to 

evidence

which would be otherwise admissible but was illegally obtained, as opposed to 

exclusion

of evidence which is inadmissible based on the rules of evidence. Shade, 867 P.2d at

396. 

 The court in Shade held that:

 "Motion to suppress" is a term of art which is defined as a request

for the exclusion of evidence premised upon an allegation that the evidence

was illegally obtained. Black's Law Dictionary 914 (5th ed. 1979) defines

the term as follows:

 Device used to eliminate from the trial of a criminal case

 evidence which has been secured illegally, generally in violation of

 the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure), the Fifth Amendment

 (privilege against self incrimination), or the Sixth Amendment (right

 to assistance of counsel, right of confrontation, etc.), of [the] U.S.

 Constitution.

 In this case, the district court excluded evidence for evidentiary

reasons. The district court did not suppress evidence. The right to appeal

is statutory. Where no statute or rule provides for an appeal, no right to

appeal exists. There is no statute or rule which provides for an appeal from

an order of the district court granting a motion in limine to exclude

evidence.

Shade, 867 P.2d at 396 (citation omitted).

 In State v. Howard (Tex. Ct. App. 1995), 908 S.W.2d 602, the state appealed

from an interlocutory trial court order which had been entitled "Order Suppressing

Evidence" but which, in fact, excluded evidence of statements by co-defendants which

implicated the defendant. The statements were not excluded based on the Sixth

Amendment grounds claimed by the defendant, but instead on Texas Rules of Criminal

Evidence. The Court of Appeals found that distinction significant. It held that 

while the

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure allowed the state to appeal from orders which grant

motions to suppress, "the legislature did not intend to create an avenue by which 

the state

could secure interlocutory review of general evidentiary rulings." Howard, 908 S.

W.2d

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (8 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

at 604. The court held that:

[T]he phrases "motion to suppress" or "suppress evidence" have developed

unique meanings in our criminal jurisprudence. Indeed, they are terms of

art which contemplate more than the simple exclusion of evidence pursuant

to the general rules of evidence. State v. Kaiser, 822 S.W.2d at 700. As

discussed in Kaiser and in decisions issued by neighboring jurisdictions, a

motion to suppress presupposes that the evidence was illegally obtained. 

We opt, as did the Kaiser court, to construe the wording of article

44.01(a)(5) to comport with, not contradict, its technical meaning. 

 Additionally, in our system of jurisprudence, we note that it is not

the function of appellate courts to sit in "instant replay" of the general

pretrial decisions made by a trial judge. He is entitled to control his

dockets and dispense justice without undue interference from appellate

bodies.

Howard, 908 S.W.2d at 604-05 (citations omitted).

 For those reasons, the Texas Court held that it was without jurisdiction to 

hear the

state's appeal, and it was dismissed.

 These decisions are consistent with the manner in which "suppression of 

evidence"

is discussed in our statutory framework. Both of this State's statutory references 

to the

suppression of evidence relate to evidence which would otherwise be admissible had it

not been illegally obtained. Section 46-13-301, MCA, permits the suppression of

confessions which were made involuntarily. Section 46-13-302, MCA, permits the

suppression of evidence gathered as the result of an unlawful search or seizure. 

 To hold that this Court has jurisdiction to consider appeals from orders which

simply exclude evidence based on the rules of evidence would require that this Court

micro-manage the discretionary functions of trial courts. Just as importantly, to 

hold that

district courts have jurisdiction to entertain appeals from justice court or city 

court based

upon pretrial determinations of the admissibility of all evidence, would allow the 

State

to avoid justice court or city court jurisdiction altogether anytime it decides it 

would be

tactically advantageous to do so. That certainly was not the intent of the 

Legislature

when it authorized appeals based on the "suppression of evidence."

 We therefore conclude that orders "suppressing evidence" are orders which 

exclude

evidence on the grounds that the evidence has been illegally obtained. They do not

include pretrial orders which exclude evidence based on Rules of Evidence, such as

relevancy, probative value, or statutory inadmissibility. To the extent that our 

decisions

in State v. T.W. (1986), 220 Mont. 280, 715 P.2d 428, and State v. Yarns (1992), 252

Mont. 45, 826 P.2d 543, are inconsistent with this holding, they are reversed. 

 We further conclude that the City Court's order dated April 23, 1996, which

excluded PBT results, and which was the basis of the State's appeal to the District 

Court,

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (9 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

was not an order "suppressing evidence." It was, in effect, an order determining 

that

PBT results are not substantive evidence at all. The City Court's and the District 

Court's

decisions in that regard were correctly based on the statutory scheme pertaining to 

PBT's,

the legislative history of those statutes, and the administrative rules enacted to 

enforce

those statutes. 

 Title 61, Chapter 8, part 4, Montana Code Annotated, relating to the offense of

driving under the influence of alcohol, provides for two types of tests to measure 

the

presence of alcohol in a person's body after being stopped based on a suspicion of 

driving

under the influence of alcohol. Section 61-8-402, MCA, provides for tests of a 

person's

blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of measuring the presence of alcohol after 

that

person has been arrested. Section 61-8-404, MCA, provides that test results obtained

pursuant to the post-arrest test are admissible as evidence at a DUI trial. That 

statute

specifically refers to the foundation for admission of evidence obtained pursuant to 

õ 61-

8-402, MCA. 

 Section 61-8-409, MCA, on the other hand, provides for a preliminary alcohol

screening test (previously referred to as a PBT) of a person's breath for the 

purpose of

"estimating the person's alcohol concentration, upon the request of a peace officer 

who

has a particularized suspicion that the person was driving or in actual physical 

control of

a vehicle . . . while under the influence of alcohol." (Emphasis added.) In other 

words,

the PBT is intended for use prior to an actual arrest for the limited purpose of

"estimating" the alcohol concentration. Subparagraph (2) specifically provides 

that: "The

results of a screening test may be used for determining whether probable cause 

exists to

believe a person has violated 61-8-401, 61-8-406, or 61-8-410." Section 61-8-409(2),

MCA (1995). There is no suggestion in õ 61-8-409, MCA, that the results of a PBT are

admissible as substantive evidence to establish a person's guilt. Neither did those 

who

spoke in support of Senate Bill 316 in the 1995 Legislative Session suggest that the 

new

statute providing for preliminary blood testing would produce substantive evidence 

of a

person's guilt. It was only referred to by the statute's proponents as assistance 

to an

investigating officer in the determination of whether to proceed to an arrest. 

Hearings

on S.B. 316 Before the Montana Senate 1995 Legislature Judiciary Comm. at 5-6, 54th

Legislature Regular Session (1995) (describing testimony of Peter Funk, former 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (10 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

Assistant

Attorney General, involved in drafting Senate Bill 316).

 Finally, those rules adopted by the Forensic Science Division of the Department

of Justice in 1995 referred to preliminary breath testing devices as "associated

equipment," as opposed to a "breath analysis instrument," and define it as follows:

 [A]ny approved device which is designed to detect and verify the

presence of alcohol or provide an estimated value of alcohol concentration. 

Analyses from this type of device, e.g., a preliminary breath tester, are to

be considered as probable cause evidence only.

Rule 23.4.201(7)(b), ARM (emphasis added).

 There are reasons apparent from the District Court record for the legislative

decision to allow use of PBT results for probable cause purposes only. Norm Fort, a

criminalist employed by Ventura County in California, who has conducted tests of the

Alco-Sensor III, acknowledged that while the instrument is reliable during controlled

studies, there are variations when used under field conditions based on 

physiological,

instrumental, and operator-induced factors.

 Philip Lively, Director of the Breath Analysis Program at the Division of 

Forensic

Science at the Montana Department of Justice, testified similarly. He gave the 

following

answer to the following question:

Q. The point is in a field setting there are a great many variances,

depending upon not only environmental conditions but on the testing

procedures and accuracies of the officer; isn't that true?

A. That is true.

 For these reasons, we conclude that results of a preliminary breath test 

(statutorily

identified as preliminary alcohol screening test) are not substantive evidence of the

amount of alcohol present in a person's body, but instead are an "estimate" of 

alcohol

concentration for the purpose of establishing probable cause to believe that a 

person is

under the influence of alcohol prior to making an arrest for violation of õõ 61-8-

401, -

405, or -410, MCA. For this reason, we conclude that the City Court's order 

excluding

PBT results at the City Court trial of the defendant, William Strizich, was not an 

order

to "suppress evidence." 

 Because the City Court did not enter an order to "suppress evidence" in this

matter, there was no statutory basis pursuant to õ 46-20-103(2)(e), MCA, for appeal 

to

the District Court. Therefore, we conclude that City Court jurisdiction was not 

exhausted

within six months by some action which authorized appeal to the District Court, and 

that

õ 46-13-401(2), MCA, has not been satisfied.

 For these reasons, we conclude that in the language of õ 46-13-401(2), MCA, the

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (11 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

prosecution of the defendant "shall . . . be dismissed with prejudice." 

 Because of Strizich's official position, this case has received more public 

attention

than is normally given to a first charge of driving under the influence of alcohol. 

Most

members of the public, and presumably the defendant, would prefer that the charge be

resolved on its merits. However, the law is clear. Absent good cause or efforts by 

the

defendant to delay trial, a misdemeanor charge must be brought to trial within six 

months

from the entry of the defendant's plea, or it must be dismissed with prejudice. The

defendant in this case is as entitled to the protection of that law as if he had no 

official

position. 

 The State had numerous opportunities to comply with the controlling statute. 

Strizich denied his guilt on November 6, 1995, and trial was immediately scheduled 

for

February 29, 1996. The State sought a continuance on the basis that its witness, a 

fulltime employee of the State, could not be present for trial on that date. Strizich 

objected

to the continuance but it was granted. A second trial was scheduled for May 2, 

1996--

still within the time allowed. The State, however, receiving no positive response 

to its

efforts to disqualify the City Judge, divested the City Court of an opportunity to 

try the

case on May 2 by appealing to the District Court from the City Court's denial of its

motion to admit evidence which was clearly inadmissible. The State, in other words,

made it impossible for the City Court to comply with the law which protects

misdemeanor defendants from untimely trials and, due to the State's delay, the 

charges

must be dismissed.

 We reverse the order of the District Court which denied the defendant's motion

to dismiss and remand to the District Court for entry of judgment consistent with 

this

opinion.

 /S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER

We Concur:

/S/ J. A. TURNAGE

/S/ WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

Justice James C. Nelson specially concurs.

 I concur in our opinion. It is disheartening, however, that we have found it

necessary to include at the end of our legal discussion a statement of the obvious--

that just

because Bill Strizich is a public figure, he is entitled to rely on the protection 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (12 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

of the law

the same as any other citizen. Even that will likely not forestall the criticism 

from those

who view our court system as being preoccupied with legal niceties to the exclusion 

of

what they believe is the only proper role of the judiciary--i.e. "to take a bite 

outtþa crime"

and "to lock 'em up and throw away the key." Nonetheless, before the faultfinders 

swell

up in righteous indignation, they at least should consider certain aspects of this 

case that

are not brought out in the opinion proper, since it was unnecessary to do so in our

discussion of the dispositive legal issue.

 One cannot review the entire record in this case without coming away with a

feeling of distaste. In ruling on various of the City's pretrial motions, the 

District Judge

entered a number of findings of fact based on evidence taken from the parties and 

after

having heard oral argument. While these do not do credit to the manifest 

frustration of

the District Judge with the City as revealed in the transcripts, even these paint a 

less than

complimentary picture of the police and the prosecution. 

 As to the initial investigation and stop of Mr. Strizich, Judge McKittrick 

found,

in pertinent part, as follows:

 1. On November 4, 1995, William Strizich was arrested by Great

 Falls Police Officer Christopher Hickman and cited with violation of 61-8-

 401, M.C.A., for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of

 alcohol.

 2. Approximately 20 minutes before he arrested Strizich,

 Hickman observed Strizich standing by a roadway in a Great Falls

 residential area with some other individuals. Hickman spoke with Strizich,

 and Strizich advised him that everything was fine, and that they were just

 trying to get a friend of Strizich's indoors. Hickman stated that he could

 understand Strizich clearly when he spoke with him.

 3. After Officer Hickman left Strizich by the side of the

 roadway, he drove to a location two blocks away, and ran the license plate

 of the vehicle near which Strizich had been standing. He learned that the

 vehicle was registered to U.S. Marshal William Strizich and his wife.

 4. Officer Hickman admitted "laying in wait" for Strizich,

 testifying that he waited in his patrol car with the intent that if Strizich got

 into his vehicle and drove it, he would arrest him.

 5. While he waited for Strizich to operate his vehicle, Hickman

 called Great Falls Police Sergeant Greg Church on his cellular phone and

 asked him to come to the location where Hickman was parked waiting for

 Strizich. Hickman told Church what route to take and to keep his

 headlights off so as not to alert Strizich. When Church arrived, Hickman

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (13 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

 told Church he had "a big fish DUI."

 6. After waiting for 15 to 20 minutes, Hickman observed Strizich

 operating his vehicle. He followed the Strizich vehicle for approximately

 7 blocks, before stopping him and eventually arresting him for DUI. 

 7. Hickman testified that during the entire period of time that he

 followed Strizich's vehicle -- for approximately 7 blocks, through two

 traffic controlled intersections, and after two left-hand turns -- Strizich

 made no unsafe driving maneuver.

 8. Hickman testified that Strizich did not weave, did not exceed

 the speed limit, did not cross the center line, did not make excessively wide

 turns, did not brake suddenly, did not brake at green lights, did not fail to

 stop at a stop sign, and did not fail to yield the right of way. Hickman has

 been trained in night-time DUI detection, and these are the cues he looks

 for in determining whether a person is driving under the influence of

 alcohol.

 9. Hickman stopped Strizich in an alley, had a conversation with

 him, asked him to perform field maneuvers, and asked him to take a

 Preliminary Breath Test (PBT). Strizich complied with these requests.

 In denying the City's motion to preclude the defense from presenting evidence to

the jury of prior "bad acts" of the police, Judge McKittrick concluded that such 

evidence

was relevant to the issue of the police officer's credibility. The court ruled: 

 D. In light of the admission that Officer Hickman was "laying in

 wait" for Strizich, and referred to him as a "big fish DUI" before the arrest

 was made, the jury could infer that Hickman had a bias against Strizich

 prior to the arrest, and that he now has an interest in the outcome of the

 litigation. Under these circumstances, evidence of Hickman's previous

 confrontations with the public and evidence of previous violations by

 Hickman of the civil rights of members of the public[] are and shall be

 admissible into evidence in this case, providing the Defendant can show

 relevancy and establishes a proper foundation.

So much for the "particularized suspicion" which was presumably the basis on which 

Mr.

Strizich was initially stopped. 

 As for the attempt by the prosecution to place before the jury evidence of Mr.

Strizich's PBT results, the court's decision was equally critical. At the outset, 

it is

important to keep in mind that, as our opinion points out, the issue of the 

admissibility

of the PBT results as substantive evidence had been for all practical purposes 

decided by

the legislature and the Forensic Science Division of the Department of Justice 

against the

prosecution long before the City decided to make this an issue in Mr. Strizich's 

case. 

It was the City's attempt to get this evidence into the trial that delayed the trial 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (14 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

date; that

necessitated the City hiring an expert criminalist from California; that 

necessitated filing

numerous briefs; that necessitated a hearing in City Court; that, not surprisingly, 

resulted

in the ruling from City Judge Luth holding the evidence to be inadmissible; that 

enabled

the prosecution to appeal the "suppression" of the evidence to the District Court 

and,

thus, get the case away from a judge that the City, three months after the 

arraignment and

three weeks prior to the original date set for trial, had unsuccessfully tried to 

disqualify;

that necessitated further briefing and a hearing in District Court; that, again not

surprisingly, precipitated a ruling by the District Judge holding the evidence 

inadmissible;

and that ultimately was the key factor in the City's losing its entire case on 

appeal to this

Court. In truth, this was a non-issue, unwinnable from the start.

 The legislature and Department of Justice had already determined that PBT 

results

were not sufficiently reliable to be considered substantive evidence. This was 

confirmed

by the City's California expert who, according to Judge McKittrick, acknowledged that

the PBT can be influenced by a broad range of factors. According to the court, the 

City,

in fact, conceded that "there is a whole laundry list" of things that could go amiss 

during

the field use of a PBT device. The court found that the California expert gave no

ultimate opinion on the reliability of the PBT, because the prosecution failed to 

lay a

proper and sufficient foundation for such an opinion. Moreover, another prosecution

witness--the very individual who authored the Department of Justice rule referred to 

in

our opinion--testified that, even when properly used and correctly calibrated, a PBT

device can have a margin of error of plus or minus 10 percent and that he was aware 

of

no case wherein the results of a PBT had been introduced into evidence for any 

purpose

other than establishing probable cause. Finally, the prosecutor conceded to the 

District

Judge that the City could have gone forward with Mr. Strizich's trial in City Court 

on

its scheduled date (within the required 6 months) had it not chosen to make an issue 

out

of the admissibility of the PBT evidence--an issue that was virtually dead on 

arrival to

begin with. And, the final irony? This "case-busting" issue that the City pursued

through the City Court and the District Court with expert witnesses, was eventually

abandoned and was not even appealed to this Court.

 So here we are. The case was not resolved on the merits and never will be; a

citizen was targeted for and then subjected to a DUI arrest more for who he was than

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (15 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM
96-604

what he did; there has likely been a substantial amount of taxpayer money spent on a

prosecution that went absolutely nowhere; instead of the speedy trial he wanted,

demanded and was constitutionally entitled to, Mr. Strizich has been twisting in the

breeze for over two years through three different courts (at his expense, not the

taxpayers, by the way); and this Court has contributed yet another opinion to this 

State's

criminal jurisprudence. And for what? So the City could catch and fry a Big Fish.

 The only good news in this shameful debacle is that when the hand-wringers

gather to assess the blame for this one, at least they won't have to look very far 

from

home.

 /S/ JAMES C. NELSON

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/96-604%20Opinion.htm (16 of 16)4/17/2007 4:28:40 PM