City of Missoula v. J. Williams
2017 Mont. LEXIS 680
| Mont. | 2017Background
- In the early morning of Jan. 24, 2016, officer Volinkaty observed Justin Williams speeding, crashing, showing signs of intoxication, and attempting to flee; Williams refused a breath test and had a prior 2008 Arizona alcohol-related conviction.
- Volinkaty obtained a telephonic search warrant under Mont. Code Ann. § 61-8-402(5) to draw Williams’s blood; the sample showed BAC 0.197.
- Williams was charged with aggravated DUI and other counts; he moved to suppress the blood evidence arguing the warrant relied on a prior Arizona conviction that is not “similar” to Montana DUI for purposes of § 61-8-402(5).
- The municipal court denied suppression; the district court (sitting as intermediate appellate court) affirmed, declining to address Williams’s new contention that he was not read the implied consent advisory.
- The Supreme Court affirmed: it held that (1) reviewing probable cause for a warrant is limited to the four corners of the affidavit and does not require a de novo legal “similarity” inquiry into out-of-state statutes, and (2) Williams waived the implied-consent-advisory challenge by not raising it in municipal court.
Issues
| Issue | Williams’s Argument | City’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of telephonic search warrant under § 61-8-402(5) to draw blood | The Arizona prior conviction is not for a "similar" offense to Montana DUI (McNally logic), so warrant authorization under § 61-8-402(5) failed and blood should be suppressed | McNally addressed sentencing similarity only; § 61-8-402(5) permits applying for a warrant and probable cause review is limited to the affidavit’s four corners | Affirmed. Court declined to import a full legal “similarity” analysis into the probable-cause four-corners review; affidavit’s statement of an out-of-state DUI conviction need not be judicially reclassified for issuance of warrant absent inaccurate/misleading information |
| Whether officer’s affidavit had to prove statutory similarity of out-of-state prior conviction | McNally compels comparing statutory elements; similarity must be established before warrant issues | Requiring such legal analysis is unnecessary and beyond the affidavit’s scope and would be impractical/time-sensitive | Held: court will not require extrinsic legal comparison; probable-cause review focuses on facts in affidavit, not extended statutory comparisons |
| Whether lack of implied consent advisory invalidates the warrant/blood draw | Volinkaty allegedly failed to read the implied consent advisory before blood draw, so warrant/search invalid | Issue not raised below; parties in municipal court treated advisory as given | Held: waived. District court properly declined to address issue first raised on appeal; appellate review limited to record and issues preserved below |
| Standard and scope of review for warrant affidavits (Franks/Worrall implications) | (Implicit) inaccurate statutory assertion should be excised; if similarity is false, warrant invalid | Probable-cause standard (Gates) governs; excision only for inaccurate/misleading info within four corners | Held: Franks/Worrall principles apply—court will excise inaccurate information, but here there was no basis to excise the affidavit’s representation and probable cause remained under Gates totality-of-circumstances review |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McNally, 50 P.3d 1080 (Mont. 2002) (comparative statutory-element analysis held Colorado DWAI not "similar" to Montana DUI for sentencing-enhancement purposes)
- State v. Giacomini, 327 P.3d 1054 (Mont. 2014) (§ 61-8-402(5) permits applying for a warrant after prior refusal but prior refusal alone does not supply probable cause)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (established totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause to support search warrants)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (procedure for challenging veracity of warrant affidavits)
- State v. Worrall, 976 P.2d 968 (Mont. 1999) (Montana standard requiring excision of inaccurate or misleading affidavit material when reviewing warrant validity)