Nichols v. Department of Justice, 248 P.3d 813

Nichols was stopped for a traffic infraction in Missoula County on June 1, 2009, with observed signs of intoxication.
She performed field sobriety tests and provided a Preliminary Alcohol Screening Test (PAST).
Authorities arrested Nichols for DUI and transported her to Missoula County Detention Center for processing.
Nichols refused to provide a breath sample at the Detention Center using the Intoxilyzer 8000.
DOJ suspended Nichols's driver’s license under § 61-8-402(4) due to her refusal to test; she filed a petition on June 8, 2009.
The district court rejected Nichols's constitutional arguments and limited the civil proceeding to the validity of the implied-consent statutes in this context.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does suspension violate right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?	Nichols	DOJ	No; implied consent provisions do not infringe the right; suspension is civil, not a search/seizure.

South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553 (1983) (recognizes broad statutory rights and protections for implied consent)
State v. Michaud, 180 P.3d 636 (2008) (upholds reasonable limits on implied consent and related penalties)
State v. Loh, 914 P.2d 592 (1996) (recognizes limited warrant-exception framework and rights scrutiny)
State v. Turbiville, 81 P.3d 475 (2003) (discusses protections for self-incrimination in implied-consent contexts)
State v. Ellis, 351 Mont. 95, 210 P.3d 144 (2009) (describes narrow warrant-exception boundaries in Montana)