97-043

 No. 97-043

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

1997

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

 v.

MICHELLE RENE NEWILL,

 Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,

 In and for the County of Missoula,

 The Honorable John S. Henson, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 For Appellant:

 Morgan M. Modine; Modine & Thompson, Missoula, Montana

 For Respondent :

 Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General

 Jennifer Anders, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana

 Robert L. "Dusty" Deschamps, III, Missoula County Attorney,

 Betty Wing, Deputy Missoula County Attorney, Missoula, Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: September 11, 1997

 Decided: October 10, 1997

Filed:

 __________________________________________

 Clerk

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-043%20Opinion.htm (1 of 6)4/16/2007 1:10:39 PM
97-043

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

 Michelle Newill (Newill), appeals from the decision of the Fourth Judicial 

District

Court, Missoula County, denying Newill's motion to suppress evidence. Newill asserts

that hospital records regarding her blood alcohol content (BAC) should have been

suppressed by the District Court because the blood samples used to determine her BAC

were not taken in accordance with 61-8-402, MCA, (implied consent statute). The

District Court held that the blood test conducted by the hospital falls within the 

"other

competent evidence" inclusion of 61-8-404(3), MCA, and denied the motion to

suppress. We affirm.

 Issue Presented

 Did the District Court err in denying Newill's motion to suppress evidence by

holding that the results of a medical blood test used to determine Newill's BAC fall

within "other competent evidence" under 61-8-404(3), MCA?

 Background

 Newill suffered severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident on January 24, 

1996. 

 At the scene of the accident, emergency response unit personnel found an empty beer

can in Newill's lap and smelled alcohol on her breath. After extracting Newill from 

her

vehicle, emergency personnel transported her to St. Patrick Hospital for treatment. 

At

the hospital, laboratory technician, Martin Guthrie (Guthrie), was directed by the

attending physician to take a blood sample for medical diagnostic and treatment 

purposes. 

In addition, the hospital tested Newill's BAC, as is normal hospital procedure when

physicians believe alcohol is involved. The hospital records, showing the BAC 

results of

Newill's blood sample, indicated that her BAC was 0.2050, well over the 0.10 

statutory

threshold for an inference of intoxication.

 During questioning at the hospital, Newill admitted to the interviewing officer 

that

she had been drinking. She also gave the officer permission to the have a blood 

sample

taken for determining her BAC. However, after four attempts, the nurse directed by 

the

officer to take the blood was not able to obtain a sample, so the officer decided to 

cease

any further attempts. 

 The officer investigating the accident cited Newill for violation of 61-8-401,

MCA, driving under the influence of alcohol. Newill appeared in Missoula County 

Justice

Court and entered a plea of not guilty. The State of Montana obtained an 

investigative

subpoena ordering St. Patrick Hospital to produce Newill's emergency room records,

including the analysis of all blood samples. (We note that this Court recently 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-043%20Opinion.htm (2 of 6)4/16/2007 1:10:39 PM
97-043

determined

that medical records are protected under the right of privacy guarantee of Article 

II,

Section 10 of the Montana Constitution and therefore are only discoverable through an

investigative subpoena upon a showing of a compelling state interest. State v. 

Nelson

(Mont. 1997), 941 P.2d 441, 448-49, 54 St.Rep. 576, 580-81. The right of privacy

issue, however, has not been raised in the context of this appeal.) Newill filed a 

motion

to suppress the hospital records containing the BAC results asserting that the 

records did

not comport with the foundational requirements of the implied consent statute. The

Justice of the Peace granted the motion to suppress, and the State of Montana 

appealed

to the District Court for a trial de novo. Again, Newill moved to suppress the 

hospital

records. As a result, the parties briefed the evidentiary issue, and the District 

Court held

a suppression hearing. 

 At the hearing, Guthrie testified that he used standard hospital procedure when 

he

drew Newill's blood and that the sample was analyzed by state-of-the-art equipment

which is tested for quality control every 24 hours. He also testified that the 

computer

printout containing the results of the blood test is a record that the hospital 

keeps in the

normal course of business. The District Court denied Newill's motion to suppress the

hospital record of her BAC. Newill then entered into a plea agreement with the 

State of

Montana whereby Newill agreed to enter an "Alford" plea to a violation of 61-8-406,

MCA, driving with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 or more. Newill reserved her right 

to

appeal the District Court's denial of her motion to suppress and the District Court 

stayed

execution of Newill's sentence pending the outcome of this appeal. 

 Standard of Review

 The standard of review of a district court's denial of a motion to suppress is

whether the court's findings were clearly erroneous and whether the findings were

correctly applied as a matter of law. State v. Siegal (Mont. 1997), 934 P.2d 176, 

180,

54 St.Rep. 158, 160-61.

 Discussion

 Newill contends that the District Court erred in denying her motion to suppress

because the blood test results admitted into evidence were not obtained in compliance

with Montana law. Specifically, the implied consent statute requires that testing 

of a

person's blood be administered at the direction of a peace officer who has reasonable

grounds to believe the person has been driving under the influence of alcohol. 

Section

61-8-402, MCA. In addition, 61-8-404(1)(b)(ii), MCA, allows a report of the 

results

of any test of a person's blood into evidence if the test is conducted by a person

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-043%20Opinion.htm (3 of 6)4/16/2007 1:10:39 PM
97-043

competent to withdraw the blood. Finally, 61-8-405, MCA (1995), states the

competency requirements: "[o]nly a physician or registered nurse or other qualified

person under the supervision and direction of a physician or registered nurse acting 

at the

request of a peace officer may withdraw blood for the purpose of determining any

measured amount or detected presence of alcohol in the person." Relying on these

statutory provisions, Newill contends that the blood samples taken by the hospital 

for

medical purposes, and not at the behest of a peace officer, should not be admitted as

evidence of her BAC. The State of Montana asserts that since the blood samples were

taken for medical treatment and diagnostic purposes, the tests do not need to be 

conducted

in accordance with the criteria of the implied consent statute.

 This Court has not had an opportunity to determine the applicability of the 

implied

consent statute criteria to blood samples drawn for medical reasons rather than at 

the

request of a peace officer. The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals (West 

Virginia

court) decided a similar issue under almost identical facts in State ex rel. Allen 

v. Bedell

(W.Va. 1994), 454 S.E.2d 77. In Bedell, the state offered results of a medical 

diagnostic

blood test as evidence of Petitioner's, BAC. Like Newill, the Petitioner in Bedell

claimed that the blood sample, taken for treatment and diagnostic purposes, should be

suppressed because it was not taken in accordance with West Virginia statutory law. 

Bedell, 454 S.E.2d at 78. West Virginia, like Montana, has an implied consent 

statute

that provides a method for taking blood samples for purposes of determining BAC. 

However, the West Virginia court determined that the requirements of the implied

consent statute had no application to the diagnostic blood test and did not serve as 

a

prohibition to its admissibility. Bedell, 454 S.E.2d at 80. The West Virginia court

reasoned that the legislature's specific inclusion of authorization for law 

enforcement to

direct blood tests to be taken "does not intimate a legislative intent to 

disallow . . .

evidence of alcohol content obtained by medical personnel in the course of 

treatment." 

Bedell, 454 S.E.2d at 79. We agree with the reasoning of the West Virginia court in

Bedell. The fact that the Montana legislature has imposed specific requirements for 

the

taking of blood samples at the request of law enforcement, does not mean blood 

samples

drawn for medical reasons must comply with the same criteria or be excluded as

evidence.

 Moreover, the Montana legislature, in addition to specifically providing methods

by which law enforcement can obtain evidence of the BAC of an individual suspected of

driving while under the influence of alcohol, also provided broad evidentiary 

provisions

for other evidence. For example 61-8-404, MCA (1995), which controls the

admissibility of evidence in a prosecution for driving under the influence provides 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-043%20Opinion.htm (4 of 6)4/16/2007 1:10:39 PM
97-043

at

(1)(a), "evidence of any measured amount or detected presence of alcohol or drugs in 

the

person at the time of the act alleged, as shown by an analysis of the person's blood,

breath, or urine, is admissible." Furthermore, subsection (3) states that "[t]he 

provisions

of this part do not limit the introduction of any other competent evidence bearing 

on the

question of whether the person was under the influence of alcohol . . . ." Section 

46-8-

404(3), MCA (1995). We determine that the criteria for admissibility under 

subsection

(1)(b), relating to blood tests administered under the implied consent statute, do 

not apply

to diagnostic blood tests taken by a hospital or treating physician. Rather, 

subsections

(1)(a) and (3) allow the admission of such medical evidence.

 Having determined that the foundational requirements of the implied consent 

statute

did not apply, the only issue remaining for the District Court was whether the 

medical

blood test taken at the hospital was "competent" evidence for purposes of 

admissibility

under 61-4-404(3), MCA. Guthrie demonstrated his competency to withdraw the blood

sample. He testified that he is a registered medical laboratory technologist and 

his skill

at taking blood samples surpasses that of an average emergency room nurse. In 

addition,

Guthrie testified that the testing equipment at St. Patrick Hospital is state-of-theart and

a quality control check is performed on the equipment every 24 hours. Furthermore, 

St.

Patrick Hospital's lab testing standards regarding variation exceed the standards 

imposed

by the State Department of Health.

 The only discrepancy in the hospital records regarded the time of the 

collection of

Newill's blood. The hospital records noted the time of collection as 1:00 a.m. 

However,

it is uncontroverted that Newill was still in transit to the hospital at that time. 

Guthrie

explained that he was called to the emergency room at 1:05 a.m. and arrived at 1:10 

a.m. 

He testified that all blood drawing procedures were accomplished at one time, and did

not exceed a fifteen minute period. Guthrie explained that the 1:00 a.m. 

designation was

likely a typographical error. The District Court found that the discrepancy was

adequately explained by Guthrie and concluded that the typographical error did not 

effect

the competency of the hospital record. We conclude that the blood test taken at the

direction of the treating physician was admissible as other competent evidence 

bearing on

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-043%20Opinion.htm (5 of 6)4/16/2007 1:10:39 PM
97-043

whether Newill was under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, the District Court 

did not

err in denying Newill's motion to suppress. Affirmed.

 /S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

We concur:

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

/S/ JIM REGNIER 

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

/S/ WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-043%20Opinion.htm (6 of 6)4/16/2007 1:10:39 PM