No. 86-376 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1986

INRE THEMATTER OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE DRIVING PRIVILEGESOF CRAIG F. ORMAN.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth JudicialDistrict, In and for the County of Gallatin, The Honorable Joseph Gary,Judgepresiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

ForAppellant: Hon. Mike Greely,Attorney General, Helena,Montana A. Michael Salvagni,CountyAttorney,Bozeman, Montana Duke R. Wolf, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana

For Respondent: StevenD. Nelson,Bozeman,Montana

Submitted on Briefs: Oct. 30, 1986 Decided: December 12, 1986

Filed: 

### DEC12

### 1986Mr. Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. Craig Ormanwas arrested fordriving und.erthe influence of alcohol. At the time of his arrest he refused to submit to a breath test to determine the level of his intoxication. The Department of Justice suspended M.r. Orman's driver's license for one year because the breath test refusalwas his second such refusal in Montana within the past five years. The District Court for the Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County, granted Mr. Orman's petition to reinstate his driving privileges because the police officer involved may have unintentionally misled Mr. Orman regardingMontana's implied consent law. We affirm. The issue in this case is whether the District Court erred in reinstatingMr. Orman's drivingprivileges. In February 1986, Craig Orman, a Washington resident,
was arrested by a Bozeman police officer for suspicion of driving while under the influence of alcohol and transported to the Gallatin County Detention Center (Center). Once at the Center, thepolice officerhanded Mr. Orman a copy of the Montana implied consent law advisory form (form). While the police officer read the form to him, Mr. Orman, sitting
across the table from the officer, read the same form. Mr. Orman then reread the form silently and said that he was not going to take the test. Apparently to clearup any confusion that might exist, the police officer then re-advised Mr. Orman thathe would losehis driver's license for ninety days if he refused to take the test. All of the above proceedings at the Centerwere video-taped. The police officer was aware that Mr. Orman had been previously arrested for a D.U.I. However, the officer wasnot aware that Mr. Orman had previously refused to ta.kea blood or breathalizer test. Because Mr. Orman's refusal in this case was his second such refusal in Montana within the last fiveyears,the Motor Vehicle Divisionof theDepartment of Justice sent a one year license suspension letter to him inaccordancewith S 61-8-403,MCA. The District Court reinstated Mr. Orman's driver's license stating: [Dlueto seriousramifications of a second refusal, the Court believes that the police should advise people that if any advise (sic) is given then it should include the second as well as the first refusal. The tape in this case showed that the statement of the officers indicated the license would only be suspended for ninety (90) days. This prohibited the Defendant from exercising intelligent judgment. For this reason, the Court reinstates driving privileges. The Gallatin County Attorney's office appealed the decision on behalf of the Department of Justice,PlotorVehicleDivision.

Did the District Court err in reinstating Mr. Orman's drivingprivileges? Sections 61-8-401 to 408,MCA, are the principle statutes controlling the driving of a motor vehicle while under the influenceof alcohol ordrugs. Mr. Orman argues that his conduct did not rise to the level of a refusal to submit to the breathalizer test, and analogizes his conduct to the conductof apersonwho consents to a searchofhis person or property, contending that a refusal should be found only where there was a knowing and voluntary refusal. This argument does not consider the nature of the motor vehicle statutes in question. Section 61-8-402, MCA, in substance provides that any person who operates a vehicle upon theroads of this state shall be deemed to have given consent to
a chemical test of his breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his blood if arrested by a police officer for driving under the influence of alcohol. The section furtherprovides that a person is deemed not to have 

### - withdrawn the consent even though he is unconscious or is otherwise in a condition rendering him incapable of refusal. As an example, if a person is so grievously under the influence of alcohol that he is incapable of expressinghis refusal to take theblood alcohol test or abreath test, the state still has the right under the statute to take such a test. We therefore conclude that the cases pertaining to thevoluntariness of a consent search or the knowing commitment of an offense are not of assistance. Section 61-8-403, MCA, controls the appeal from the suspension of a license to the district court and in part limits the issues to be considered by the court as follows:



# . . . the court shall take testimony and examine into the facts of the case, except that the issues shall be limited to whether a peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person had been driving or was in actual physical control of a vehicleuponways of this stateopen to the public, while under the influence of alcohol,whether the person was placed under arrest, and whether such person refused to submit to the test. The court shall thereupon determine whether the petitioner is entitled to a license or is subject to suspension asheretofore provided. The District Court correctly identified the key issue as whetherMr. Orman refused to submit to the breathalizer test. We have reviewed the videotape prepared at the Center, which covers the police procedure with Mr. Orman. The officer carefully read the State of Montana implied consent law advisory form which covers the essential elements of 5 61-8-402, MCA, and which specifically provides as followswith regard to the suspension of the license and driving privilege:
3. You are advised that:



# ... (b)Upon receipt of the sworn statement, the Motor Vehicle Division shall suspend your driver's license and driving privilege for 90 days upon a first refusal; or shall revoke your license and driving privilege forone (1) year upon a second or subsequent refusal within a five (5) year period. In either case, no provisional or probationary license may be issued. The tape shows that the officer carefully read that provision to Mr. Orman. In addition, the tape shows that Mr. Orman reread the form to himself over the course of several minutes. After completing that rereading,Mr. Orman stated that he was not going to take the breathalizer test. Up to that point the procedure taken by the police officer was meticulously careful and complete and would clearly afford a basis to conclude that Mr. Orman's license should be revoked for oneyearuponhis second refusal to take the breathalizer test within the previous five years. However, there were additional statementsmade which caused the DistrictCourt to reach a different conclusion. me--tape-demons tra-s-&-pos s+fri-1;-i-y--tha tMr. Ormanmay havebeek-s*ht-ly-e-enfu-sed--at++tiW&eo--t-aket-h-her--Ce. Jn substance the officer next advised Mr. Orman thathe would have to charge him with driving under the influence and that his license would be suspended for ninety days. Next, after giving the Miranda warning, the officer asked Mr. Orman a number of questions. Mr. Orman specifically stated that he thought he was under the influence of alcohol. The tape further demonstrates that the police officer ran 

### Mr. Orman through the same tests at theCenter as were given at the time of initial arrest. The tests confirm the conclusionofMr. Orman thathe appeared to be under the influence of alcohol-. In the course of this questioning and testing, the officer indicated several more times that he was required to charge Mr. Orman with driving under the influence and that his license would be suspended for ninety days. We do emphasize that therewasno intenton the part of the officer to mislead Mr. Orman. The officer did not know that Mr. Orman had previously refused a breathalizer test within the past five years. A review of the evidence clearly demonstrates that even a person not under the influence of alcoholwould reasonablyhave concluded that his licensewas going to be suspended for only ninety days. We do not find it reasonable to separate this knowledge from the initial statement by Mr. Orman that he would not submit to the breathalizer test. While we do not choose to set forthany rule controlling the informationto be given by an officer at the time of such an arrest,we conclude in this specific set of circumstances, that Mr. Orman's refusal to submit to the breathalizer test contained a conditionofa ninety day driver's license suspension. We affirm the order of the District Court reinstating Mr. Orman's drivingprivileges,noting that the record demonstrates that his driving privileges had been suspended for more than ninety days prior to the reinstatement by the DistrictCourt.

Chief JusticeIN THE SUPREMECOURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. 86-376

IN RE THEMATTER OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE DRIVING PRIVILEGESOF CRIAG F. ORMAN - ) 1 ORDER

The State petitioned this Court for a rehearing or a clarification of thismatter. After due consideratiocof the arguments made, we conclude that our opinion dated December 12, 1986, contains a sentence which is unnecessary and thus the opinion should be amended by striking the entire first sentenceof the last paragraph onpage 5 of the slip opinion. The sentence to be elininated from the opinion is.the one which states: "The tape demonstrates the possibility that Mr. Orman may have been slightly confused at the time he refused to take the breathalizer test." Thus,page 5 of the slip opinion shall read: 

# FILED FEB191987

CL-K OFSUPREMECOURT FTATEOfMON7ANAwith regard to the suspc-nsion of the 1-icense and driving privilege:
3. You areadvised that:



## ... (b)Upon receipt of the sworn statement, the Motor Vehicle Division shall suspend your driver's license and driving privilege for 90 days upon a first refusal; or shall revoke your license and drivingprivilege forrJne (1) year upon a second or subsequent refusal within a five (5) year period. In either case, no provisional or probationary license may be issued. The tape shows that theofficercarefullyread thatprovision to Mr. Orman. In addition, the tape shows that Mr. Orman reread the form to himself over the course of several minutes. After completing that rereading, Mr. Orman stated that he was not going to take the breathalizer test. Up to that point the procedure taken by the poli-ce officer was meticulously careful and complete and would cl-earlyafford a basis to conclude-thatMr. Orman's license should be revoked forone yearupon his second refusal tctake the breathalizer test within the previous five years. However, there were additional statementsmade which cafised theDistrict Court to reach a different conclusion. In substance theofficernext advised Mr. Orman thathe would have tocharge him with drivingunder the influence and that. his license would he suspended for ninety days. Next, after giving the Miranda warning, theofficerasked Mr. Grman a number of questions. Mr. Orman specifically stated that he thought he was under the influence of alcohol. The tape further demonstrates that the police officer ran Mr. Orman through the same tests at theIn all clarification DATED th