SANDERS v STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 96-331 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1997 FORREST M. SANDERS, Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA, ex rel. DARRELL E. BECKSTROM, Chief, DRIVER IMPROVEMENT BUREAU, Respondent APPEAL FROM: and Respondent District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Diane G. Bars, Judge Presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Forrest For M. Sanders, Pro Se, Billings, Montana Respondent: Honorable Joseph Jennifer Anders, Helena, Montana Alan J. Montana Hall, P. Mazurek, Attorney Assistant Attorney Deputy City Attorney, General; General, Billings, Chief Justice J. A. Pursuant to Section 1995 Internal cited result with to the the appeals court, of his Supreme and West Opinion shall filing Court not be as a public and by a report Publishing driver's Court. Supreme by its of its Companies. decision Yellowstone Montana the decision Court the of Montana following be published of the Sanders of the county, license Thirteenth affirming pursuant to the § 61-8-402, We affirm. We restate 1. Did the the following District possessed reasonable under influence the 2. fact Did the of the light. of Longin 30, followed intersection, red on appeal: in finding believe to Court law 1995, that Sanders was driving issue amended findings properly to correct Billings that an error City make a right back the turn over-accelerated end into vehicle where Officer Longin in the of procedural it Police without center and observed made another Tony stopping when it the Officer for turned, of traffic. that it slowed turn the causing lane right Longin red it to Officer the next stopping without at for stopped the light. Officer vehicle. err raised alcohol? of The vehicle and issues case? a vehicle fishtail Court District On October observed two grounds and conclusions history the 3 (c), Rules, Clerk District MCA. Paragraph Reporter Forrest suspension the and shall State Judicial delivered I, Operating as precedent document Turnage Longin The driver activated exited his overhead and 2 yelled lights that and he had not done anything his wrong. vehicle and insurance, which Officer then and noticed him requested his speech tests, which Based Sanders on his concluded arrested Detention Facility. advisory Sanders refused. suspended MCA, to form of a "punk" under and to of license, breath Longin told perform him and to field and again insurance observations, the 'If--- sobriety him to the the license to District submit suspension, alcohol him to pursuant which it and County an implied a breath Department 5 61-8-402, Court Longin Yellowstone read Montana pursuant of the Longin and requested license to Officer Officer influence was transported Accordingly, his proof Sanders' proof and these was petitioned review to his When Officer Sanders There, Sanders' Sanders return refused. Sanders consent produced on his him asked Sanders him. to license, driver slurred. called experience that driver driver's intoxicants produce Longin the Sanders. was to Sanders Officer his The smelled Sanders registration, for as Forrest Longin that Off." asked instructed registration. identified Officer Longin of test. Justice MCA. to § 61-8-403, affirmed. Sanders appeals. 1. Did the District Court err in finding possessed reasonable grounds to believe that under the influence of alcohol? Sanders to believe More to contends that specifically, pull him that he was Officer driving he claims Longin under that the over. 3 that Officer Longin Sanders was driving lacked the police reasonable influence of lacked probable grounds alcohol. cause We review a reinstatement court's of of P.Zd are 886, v. In that When to believe See Grinde v. arresting has been State the (1996), State's Justice, petition 275 Mont. of the conclusions 119, 122, 910 a presumption revocation. lies of The burden with the 255 Mont. MVD (1992), for whether and its was improper Court 254, same test 899 P.2d 46-5-401, committed. has to Longin under 249 Mont. for driver. 259-60, 77, 5 61-8-403, influence 79, as particularized 540, v. Bauer, MCA, supports of and a particularized suspicion 46-5-401, alcohol. 473, 475. -403, MCA, provided Reynolds (1995), 910 P.2d at 889. stop if the an investigative Section grounds suspicion State 541-42. MCA, its 813 P.2d 55 61-8-402 in petition had reasonable the in MCA, and discussed 47-50, officer Officer provided Sanders' pursuant was driving (1991), the considered suspension grounds § 46-5-401, Section of State essentially 46, erroneous act Sanders The reasonable 272 Mont. v. to whether that in determine proceedings, license was limited for clearly District his are are a 1140. the challenging to license suspension Dept. 1137, of to the State, denial reinstatement attaches 841 P.2d review fact Bauer 888. proving Jess of court's driver's correct. correctness of a findings law district that an offense MCA, provides: Investigative stop. In order to obtain or verify an account of the person's presence or conduct or to determine whether to arrest the person, a peace officer may stop any person or vehicle that is observed in circumstances that create a particularized suspicion that the person or occupant of the vehicle has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense. 4 The issue to justify at the police stop 542-43. If, officer influence alcohol, a chemical test. may ripen facts or vehicle light, hand turn. failed found making of stopping for the red the After slurred and Officer finding registration. believe influence pursuant his Longin's concluded that of to the The vehicle stop at 1141. Sanders' slowed before for a making a right fishtailed vehicle on these occurrence observed into right turn without observations, investigation Officer Officer driver's on Officer was necessary was alcohol and § 61-8-402(3), Sanders to and findings, his MCA. 5 his license intoxicants also proof the to of comply insurance District reasonable vehicle and exhibited and refused produce possessed operating that smelled license these Longin Sanders Longin speech. instructions Based that investigative stop. Sanders' in Longin the submission 841 P.Zd made another additional be under An through Sanders' Based Sanders, difficulty with light. stopping observed turn, to 476. ~, Jess Street. 899 stop, and require at Officer Sanders that a traffic that order Revnolds, driver arrest stop. 27th traffic. concluded to in investigative the to make a complete lane initiated the on North another Longin cause exists driven. a justified 813 P.2d after Court While fact believes probable incidents but is making Grinde, traveling suspicion he can make an arrest into The District red after reasonably of stop of particularized investigative an P.2d to of whether while was properly Court grounds to under the suspended The District 8-402, of Court MCA, and properly his driver's findings are clearly supported the relevant Sanders' under for reinstatement petition We hold that by substantial factors the credible District § 61- Court's evidence and are not erroneous. that the argues traffic submitted to prove red lights. not confirm two Sanders be given fact, to disturbed St.Rep. 804, He Supervisor, concerning the timing in downtown be impossible found for Spurlock's that it because are State to of Billings, him in to run "confusing Spurlock testimony" for did not credibility know Ahmed (1996), petition for cert. filed, District Court's to at run what weight to trier of by the and credibility v. did him and the be determined fact an attempt two consecutive was impossible Witness questions 808, red. Scott lights on appeal. were from testimony and disputed found hearing was traveling. their it stop to when reinstatement theory red failed erred Signal The court Sanders' Court the lights would consecutive he at traffic it District where City of that the lights Billings and sequence speed that testimony Spurlock, will 924 P.2d (U.S. not be 679, 686, 53 Nov. 25, 1996) 96-6901). We affirm to denied license. Sanders (No. considered permanently suspending granting his him the enjoin the driver's interim Montana license injunctive 2. Did the District fact and conclusions of history of the case? order Court law to denying Sanders' Department and dissolving of its request Justice from previous order relief. properly correct 6 issue amended findings of an error in the procedural Following issued the findings reinstatement hearing, and conclusions that on May 8, summarized 1996, the the court history of the case: Petitioner, Forrest Sanders, pursuant to 5 61-8-403, MCA, requests this Court reinstate his driving privileges which were suspended for a period of 90 days by the State of Montana . . on or about October 30, 1995. On May 15, 1996, the conclusions that restated except the ninety-day that months. to Sanders amend his are license unpersuaded The is 833. In that if concluded have to him officer officer submit similar is to the not evidence at the informed Sanders the would that test for 731 P.2d situation his in a period reinstatement that the here. hearing license would 7 to Mont. this 332, last the test at for ninety had previously five years. than could that We not explained 835. Neither that P.2d pursuant defendant longer rule 731 be suspended the in a defendant chemical defendant for period informed offered m, the We responsible exception circumstances, suspended officer. six suspension 224 license his chemical under license mistakenly was unaware license That is (1986), MCA, that by the of Orman to months. days Justice jurisdiction to six argument. of a police to lacked ninety A notable Matter that his from and conclusions, was amended Court MCA. Orman, a District findings and suspension driver's he failed declined the Department in The that amended findings § 61-8-402, 5 61-8-402, days. previous applicable with explained issued license by Sanders' the accordance the suspension Montana determining to claims court party Officer be suspended presented Longin for had a period less a stipulation notifying that the hearing, that six-month the District and conclusions of Sanders' license. Affirmed. We concur: Ju$tices Sanders' had been read he was read anything We hold of fact Sanders him of the now that / After than six months. attorney an implied Sanders suspension. signed consent form cannot argue different. Court properly of law affirming amended its the six-month findings suspension
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.
