Opinion ID: 886201
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the District Court erred in denying Krause's motion to exclude statements he made in response to questioning by Officer Heinecke before Officer Heinecke identified himself as a law enforcement officer.

Text: ¶ 31 Prior to the hearing on his petition for reinstatement of his driver's license, Krause filed a motion in limine to suppress various statements he made to Officer Heinecke. The District Court denied Krause's motion and the statements were admitted into evidence over Krause's objection. ¶ 32 We have previously stated: The purpose of a motion in limine is to prevent the introduction of evidence which is irrelevant, immaterial, or unfairly prejudicial. Accordingly, the authority to grant or deny a motion in limine rests in the inherent power of the court to admit or exclude evidence and to take such precautions as are necessary to afford a fair trial for all parties. Hulse, ¶ 15 (quoting City of Helena v. Lewis (1993), 260 Mont. 421, 425-26, 860 P.2d 698, 700). Hence, we will not overturn a district court's grant or denial of a motion in limine absent an abuse of discretion. Hulse, ¶ 15. ¶ 33 Krause argues that pursuant to Montana's stop and frisk statute (§ 46-5-402(4), MCA), before asking him where he had been and if he had been drinking, Officer Heinecke was required to inform Krause that he was a peace officer; that the stop was not an arrest, but rather a temporary detention for an investigation; and that, upon completion of the investigation, Krause would be released if not arrested. Thus, Krause asserts that since he was not provided with the pertinent information before questioning, his statements to Officer Heinecke should have been suppressed. ¶ 34 The State argues on the other hand that Krause's contention would be true only if Officer Heinecke had reason to suspect that Krause was armed and presently dangerous as provided by subsection (1) of § 46-5-402, MCA. The State maintains that under this subsection of the statute, since Officer Heinecke had no reason to suspect that Krause was armed and dangerous, subsection (4) is not applicable. ¶ 35 The State also argues that this was an investigative stop not a stop and frisk and that Montana's investigative stop statute (§ 46-5-401, MCA), contains no requirements similar to those found in § 46-5-402(4), MCA. Thus, the State asserts that, under § 46-5-401, MCA, Officer Heinecke had the authority to obtain or verify an account of Krause's presence or conduct or to determine whether to arrest him. ¶ 36 However, § 46-5-402, MCA provides: Stop and frisk. A peace officer who has lawfully stopped a person under 46-5-401 or this section: (1) may frisk the person and take other reasonably necessary steps for protection if the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that the person is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or another person present; (2) may take possession of any object that is discovered during the course of the frisk if the officer has probable cause to believe the object is a deadly weapon; (3) may demand the name and present address of the person; and (4) shall inform the person, as promptly as possible under the circumstances and in any case before questioning the person, that the officer is a peace officer, that the stop is not an arrest but rather a temporary detention for an investigation, and that upon completion of the investigation, the person will be released if not arrested. [Emphasis added.] Therefore, § 46-5-402, MCA, by its terms, clearly and unambiguously applies to a stop made pursuant to § 46-5-401, MCA. Moreover, because subsection (4) of § 46-5-402, MCA, begins with the term shall it is mandatory whether the stop is an investigative stop under § 46-5-401, MCA, or a stop and frisk under § 46-5-402, MCA. ¶ 37 While we suspect that the Legislature may not have intended to require that peace officers give the warning contemplated in § 46-5-402(4), MCA, when a person is stopped for a DUI investigation where there is no intention to frisk, that is not how the statute reads. However, in the construction of a statute our job is simply to ascertain and declare what is in terms or in substance contained therein, not to insert what has been omitted or to omit what has been inserted. Section 1-2-101, MCA. ¶ 38 Accordingly, we hold that the District Court erred by not suppressing the statements Krause made to Officer Heinecke prior to Officer Heinecke giving the warning as set forth in § 46-5-402(4), MCA.