State v. Shepp, 384 P.3d 1055

On Sept. 19, 2014, Ravalli County Deputy Gordy Jessop stopped Carl Shepp for failing to signal and asked if he had been drinking; Shepp admitted drinking "five or six beers."
Deputy Jessop administered field sobriety tests and requested a preliminary breath test; Shepp refused the breath test but verbally agreed to a blood test at the hospital.
At Marcus Daly Memorial Hospital Shepp read a hospital "Patient Consent and Financial Agreement," did not sign it, and the deputy signed the form; Shepp’s blood was drawn without verbal or physical resistance.
Shepp moved to suppress the blood-test results; the Justice Court denied the motion, he pled guilty reserving the right to appeal, and the District Court (trial de novo) held a suppression hearing and denied suppression.
The District Court found Shepp expressly consented at the scene, never informed officers or hospital staff he revoked consent, and that the hospital consent form related to treatment/payment and did not govern statutory DUI consent.
The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the District Court, concluding findings were supported and the law was correctly applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shepp withdrew consent to blood test	State: consent was given and not withdrawn	Shepp: verbal consent was revoked by refusing to sign hospital consent form	Court: No withdrawal; verbal consent stood and form was irrelevant
Whether failure to sign hospital consent implies refusal	State: not an implied refusal where no clear revocation	Shepp: non-signature is uncooperative conduct amounting to implied refusal (citing prior breath-test cases)	Court: Non-signature did not constitute implied refusal here; no notice of revocation
Whether Patient Consent Form controls statutory consent	State: hospital form is separate administrative/treatment agreement	Shepp: hospital form was evidence he did not consent to blood draw	Court: Form addresses treatment/payment and does not alter DUI consent rules
Review standard for suppression ruling	State: district court findings entitled to deference	Shepp: disputed factual findings and credibility assessments	Court: Affirmed district court; findings not clearly erroneous and law applied correctly

Wessell v. State, 277 Mont. 234, 921 P.2d 264 (1996) (refusal to submit to test may be implied by uncooperative conduct)
Johnson v. Division of Motor Vehicles, 219 Mont. 310, 711 P.2d 815 (1985) (implied refusal found where defendant demanded attorney presence)
Hunter v. State, 264 Mont. 84, 869 P.2d 787 (1994) (implied refusal from deficient performance on test)
State v. Wagner, 370 Mont. 381, 303 P.3d 285 (2013) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Brave, 384 Mont. 169, 376 P.3d 139 (2016) (clarifying clearly erroneous standard)
State v. Deines, 351 Mont. 1, 208 P.3d 857 (2009) (deference to district court credibility findings)
State v. Gittens, 341 Mont. 450, 178 P.3d 91 (2008) (same)