Court Opinion

ID: 9510157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:53:19.080644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:57.610177
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE TRIEWEILER
specially concurring.
¶68 I agree with the result of the majority opinion. I do not agree with all that is stated in that opinion.
¶69 Specifically, I disagree with the majority’s statement in ¶43 of the opinion that “we agree” that speed alone can serve as the basis for a reckless driving conviction. Without consideration of the surrounding circumstances, speed alone can never establish a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others. If so, then what is the speed which under any circumstance would be deemed reckless? Motorists are entitled to know!
¶70 Is the speed at which the operation of a motor vehicle becomes reckless the same on Interstate 90 as on Highway 93 from Missoula to Poison? Is a reckless speed the same in a 1998 Porsche Carrera as in a 1981 Dodge Aries? Is it the same in bad weather as in good weather? Is it the same at nighttime as it is during daylight hours?
¶71 Obviously the answer to all the preceding questions is no, because speed without regard to other surrounding circumstances is meaningless.
¶72 I particularly object to inclusion of this advisory statement in the majority opinion since it is totally unnecessary to the opinion. Just before the advice is offered, the opinion correctly points out that: “Stanko’s argument that speed alone may not constitute reckless driving is beside the point. Neither officer cited Stanko for reckless driving based solely on speed. Rather, both officers considered speed plus the other factors referred to above.”
¶73 It is the portion of the opinion quoted in the preceding paragraph with which I agree. It is also the quoted portion of the opinion which makes the majority’s speculative advice regarding “speed alone” both unnecessary and inappropriate.
¶74 If speed alone was the issue in this case, I would have concluded that it could not serve as the basis for a reckless driving charge unless the motorist charged had been given prior notice by the State of the speed at which his conduct violated the law. However, because speed alone is not the issue, neither is that advice necessary.
¶75 For these reasons, I specially concur with the result of the majority opinion.
JUSTICE HUNT joins in the foregoing specially concurring opinion.