358 P.3d 917
Mont.2015Background
- On Nov. 16, 2013, Hala crashed his pickup around 12:30 a.m.; he was incapacitated and the crash went undiscovered until ~5:00 a.m. when passersby called for help.
- Trooper DeJong arrived after emergency crews and Hala was transported to Central Montana Medical Center (CMMC), arriving ~6:45 a.m.
- CMMC drew a medical plasma blood sample at ~6:45 a.m. that later showed a 0.17 plasma BAC (≈0.14 whole blood).
- Trooper DeJong interviewed Hala at ~8:10 a.m.; after implied-consent advisement a second (whole blood) sample was drawn ~8:30 a.m. showing 0.122 BAC.
- Hala was charged under the DUI per se statute (§ 61-8-406(1)(a), MCA). He moved to suppress both BAC results in district court (arguing the 8:30 test was not taken within a “reasonable time” and the 6:45 result was improperly released/HIPAA). The district court denied suppression; Hala pled guilty reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a blood test drawn >8 hours after the act of driving was taken within a reasonable time | State: Totality of circumstances controls; given delay in discovery and medical treatment, the 8:30 a.m. draw was timely | Hala: 8+ hour delay is per se unreasonable; 8:30 a.m. test should be suppressed | Court: Affirmed—considering totality (injuries, delayed discovery, prompt officer action), the 8:30 test was taken within a reasonable time |
| Whether district court erred in applying inevitable discovery to admit the 6:45 a.m. test when State raised it at the hearing | State: Even if authorization flawed, result admissible under inevitable discovery | Hala: Release violated HIPAA and district court improperly considered inevitable discovery raised late | Court: Declined to reach this issue because resolution of the first issue makes it unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. McGowan, 332 Mont. 490 (2006) (applies the “reasonable time” requirement under § 61‑8‑401(4) to DUI per se prosecutions and permits later tests taken within a reasonable time to be admissible without retrograde extrapolation)
- State v. Hamilton, 312 Mont. 249 (2002) (reasonableness of delay measured by totality of circumstances; officer’s non‑unreasonable delay upheld given facts)