STATE v MANGELS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Uo. t28b3 ilq LBE ~ U P K E P ~COURT 3~ L STATE OF MONIIANA 1975 S'fATE OF XONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs H. K. MANGELS, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T w e l f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable B. W. Thomas, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Courisel of Record: For Appellant : Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana Thomas A. Budewitz, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana W i l l i a m Solem, County A t t o r n e y , Chinook, Montana S t u a r t C. MacKenzie, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , Chinook, Montana F o r Respondent: R o b e r t D. Morrison a r g u e d , Havre, Montana Morrison, E t t i e n and B a r r o n , Havre, Montana - - - Submitted: -C - 4 4 Filed: Decided J a n u a r y 2 1 , 1975 :Jpd 4 :,,, 5P7 Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . H e r b e r t R . Mangels was c o n v i c t e d i n t h e j u s t i c e c o u r t of B l a i n e County f o r d r i v i n g w h i l e under t h e i n f l u e n c e of i n toxicating liquor. d i s t r i c t court. He a p p e a l e d from t h a t c o n v i c t i o n t o t h e P r i o r t o t r i a l t h e r e , he f i l e d a motion t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e o f h i s blood a l c o h o l l e v e l , d e r i v e d from a blood sample t a k e n s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e a l l e g e d o f f e n s e . The motion was g r a n t e d , and t h e S t a t e h e r e a p p e a l s from t h a t o r d e r . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e motion t o s u p p r e s s s o l e l y on t h e b a s i s of a n a g r e e d s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s and s u p p o r t i n g memoranda by t h e p a r t i e s . N f u r t h e r evidence o r o r a l arguo ment was r e c e i v e d . On t h e e v e n i n g o f August 2 6 , 1973, d e f e n d a n t was i n v o l v e d i n a t w o - v e h i c l e c o l l i s i o n on U.S. Highway No. 2 , n e a r Lohman, Montana. Only d e f e n d a n t was i n j u r e d a n d , w h i l e he was a w a i t i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o a nearby h o s p i t a l , t h e o d o r o f a l c o h o l was d e t e c t e d on h i s b r e a t h by t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g highway p a t r o l m a n . Defendant a r r i v e d a t t h e h o s p i t a l by ambulance a p p r o x i mately f o r t y - f i v e minutes a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t occurred. The n u r s e on d u t y n o t e d " t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t a p p e a r e d t o be c o n f u s e d and was s u f f e r i n g from a b r a s i o n s and c o n t u s i o n s " . A t t h e r e q u e s t of t h e highway p a t r o l m a n , t h e n u r s e p r e p a r e d t o t a k e a blood sample f o r d e t e r m i n i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s blood a l c o h o l l e v e l . The n u r s e t o l d d e f e n d a n t t h a t s h e was g o i n g t o draw h i s b l o o d , b u t d i d n o t t e l l him h e r purpose i n d o i n g s o . Defendant n e i t h e r o b j e c t e d n o r e x p r e s s l y c o n s e n t e d t o t h e t a k i n g of t h e sample. A n a l y s i s of t h a t sample l a t e r r e v e a l e d a . 1 9 blood a l c o h o l l e v e l . The highway p a t r o l m a n d i d n o t t a l k t o d e f e n d a n t a t any time p r i o r t o t h e t a k i n g o f t h e blood sample. A t no t i m e had de- f e n d a n t been t o l d t h a t he was under a r r e s t o r t h a t he was c h a r g e d w l t h d r i v i n y w h i l e under t h e i n f l u e n c e of i n t o x i c a t i n g l i q u o r . In t h e p a t r o l m a n ' s o p i n i o n , h e d i d n o t a r r e s t d e f e n d a n t , a l t h o u g h h e d i d g i v e him a c i t a t i o n on t h e morning f o l l o w i n g t h e a c c i d e n t and t h e b l o o d t e s t . S e v e r a l weeks l a t e r , a c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d i n j u s t i c e c o u r t and a w a r r a n t f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s a r r e s t was i s s u e d . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d , i n g r a n t i n g t h e m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s , t h a t s i n c e d e f e n d a n t had n o t been a r r e s t e d a n d s i n c e h e had n o t g i v e n h i s a c t u a l c o n s e n t t o t h e t e s t , t h e t a k i n g o f t h e s a m p l e was i n v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 32-2142.1, R.C.M. 1947. This appeal presents t h a t issue only. The c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e , a s c i t e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s o r d e r , i s s e c t i o n 32-2142.1, R.C.M. 1947. It provides: " ( a ) Any p e r s o n who o p e r a t e s a motor v e h i c l e upon t h e p u b l i c highways of t h i s s t a t e s h a l l be deemed t o h a v e g i v e n c o n s e n t , s u b j e c t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n 32-2142, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , t o a chemical t e s t of h i s blood, b r e a t h , o r u r i n e f o r t h e purpose of determining t h e a l c o h o l i c c o n t e n t o f h i s b l o o d i f a r r e s t e d by a p e a c e o f f i c e r f o r d r i v i n g o r i n a c t u a l p h y s i c a l c o n t r o l of a motor v e h i c l e w h i l e u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f i n t o x i c a t i n g l i q u o r . * * * The a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r may d e s i g n a t e which o f t h e a f o r e s a i d t e s t s s h a l l b e administered. " ( b ) Any p e r s o n who i s u n c o n s c i o u s o r who i s o t h e r w i s e i n a c o n d i t i o n r e n d e r i n g him i n c a p a b l e o f r e f u s a l , s h a l l be deemed n o t t o h a v e withdrawn t h e c o n s e n t p r o v i d e d by p a r a g r a p h ( a ) o f t h i s section. " (c) I f a p e r s o n u n d e r a r r e s t r e f u s e s upon t h e r e q u e s t of a peace o f f i c e r t o submit t o a chemical t e s t d e s i g n a t e d by t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r a s p r o vided i n paragraph (a) of t h i s s e c t i o n , none s h a l l [Emphasis a d d e d . ] b e g i v e n . * * *." The absence of an a r r e s t i s n o t d i s p u t e d , b u t t h e S t a t e a s s e r t s t h a t an a r r e s t i s n o t r e q u i r e d under paragraph ( b ) . Defendant a r g u e s t h a t h e was n e i t h e r u n c o n s c i o u s n o r " o t h e r w i s e i n a cond i t i o n r e n d e r i n g him i n c a p a b l e o f r e f u s a l " and t h e r e f o r e p a r a graph ( a ) c o n t r o l s . Paragraph ( a ) c l e a r l y r e q u i r e s an a r r e s t b e f o r e t h e i m p l i e d c o n s e n t p r o v i s i o n becomes o p e r a t i v e . The r e q u i r e m e n t i s c l e a r , b o t h on t h e f a c e o f t h e s t a t u t e a n d i n t h e title of the original act. Sec. 1, Ch. 131, Laws of 1971. It is equally apparent that there is no similar requirement in . paragraph (b) Unless the facts before us establish the applicability of paragraph (b), we must affirm the district court's order suppressing the blood test for lack of a preceding arrest. Since there is no question as to defendant's consciousness, paragraph (b) can only apply if the defendant was "in a condition render- ing him incapable of refusal". The agreed facts are insufficient to bring this case within the provisions of paragraph (b). They do not establish that defendant was in a condition rendering him incapable of refusal. The nurse did not indicate in the hospital record that defendant was intoxicated. The State attempts to meet that argument by asserting that the defendant's physical condition was so unstable that any questions by the patrolman would have been injurious. The agreed statement of facts does not support that argument. Finally, the State urges our adoption of the rationale employed by the Florida court in State v. Mitchell (Fla. 1971), 245 So.2d 618. While the facts and statutes presented there are somewhat parallel to the instant case, we are not persuaded. Al- though here the State argues that the arresting officer must have discretion in making his determination of capacity, the result of the rationale employed by the Florida court is a vesting of too much discretion. The potential for abuse is manifest. The arresting officer, under the broad discretion there granted, need only find some fact on which to base a conclusion of incapacity, and then he need not arrest or request the test, before ordering its administration. We do not mean to suggest that such abuse is likely in Xontana, but the potential for abuse outweighs any inconvenience which might result from a narrower construction. Section 32- 2142.1, R.C.M. 1947, limits the.,officerls discretion to those cases where the subject is incapable of refusing the test. Here, we only require that the incapacity be determined on the basis of the best evidence which is reasonably available to the officer. The agreed statement of facts does not so indicate here. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order suppressing the results of the blood test. Justice i e cbncur : q .. I dissent. I would hold t h a t evidence of che b l o o d sample caken 1:rorn defendant i s a d m i s s i b l e a g a i n s t him. The o p i n i o n of t h e m a j o r i t y s t a n d s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e highway patrolman o r p o l i c e o f f i c e r on t h e scene does have t h e d i s c r e t i o n t o make t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of whether t h e s u s p e c t i s " i n a c o n d i t i o n r e n d e r i n g him i n c a p a b l e of r e f u s a l " b u t t h a t , i n t h i s c a s e , t h e agreed s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h i s defendant was "in a c o n d i t i o n r e n d e r i n g him i n c a p a b l e of r e f u s a l " . I would hold t h a t t h e agreed s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s does s u p p o r t such a f i n d i n g . emergency room of t h e h o s p i t a l . times. The defendant was i n t h e He was i n a s u p i n e p o s i t i o n a t a l l The n u r s e on d u t y noted t h a t defendant "appeared t o be con- fused and was s u f f e r i n g a b r a s i o n s and c o n t u s i o n s . " To have a c t u a l l y placed defendant under a r r e s t a t t h i s time q u i t e p o s s i b l y could have worsened h i s p h y s i c a l and emotional c o n d i t i o n . Public policy demands t h e l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of laws concerning d r i v i n g on p u b l i c highways w h i l e under t h e i n f l u e n c e of a l c o h o l . The drunk d r i v e r i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a g r e a t p e r c e n t a g e of t r a f f i c d e a t h s on t h e n a t i o n ' s highways. The "implied consent" law was e n a c t e d a s a d e t e r r e n t f o r c e t o keep drunk d r i v e r s o f f t h e road. In order t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e law, law enforcement o f f i c e r s must be a b l e t o use d i s c r e t i o n i n e n f o r c i n g i t . T h i s i s n o t an u n b r i d l e d d i s - c r e ~ i o n ,a s t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n would s u g g e s t , b u t i s d i s c r e t i o n reviewable a t a l l times by t h e c o u r t s .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.