354 P.3d 590
Mont.2015Background
- In April 2013 Robert Spady was arrested for DUI and ordered by Justice Court to participate in Montana’s 24/7 Sobriety Program (twice-daily breath tests) as a condition of pretrial release; he missed three tests and was charged with three counts of criminal contempt.
- Spady pleaded nolo contendere to contempt in exchange for dismissal of the DUI and reserved constitutional challenges to § 44-4-1205(3), MCA; he then appealed to District Court seeking dismissal of the contempt charges.
- The District Court granted Spady’s motion, holding the statute (as read by the court) was unconstitutionally vague, improperly delegated legislative authority to the Attorney General, and that the program’s testing/fees amounted to pretrial punishment violating due process.
- The Montana Supreme Court assumed supervisory control, limited review to constitutional issues raised, and determined the 2011 version of the statute (not 2013 amendments) applied.
- The Supreme Court: (a) reversed the District Court’s delegation rulings based on 2013 amendments and as to fee adoption authority; (b) held breath tests are searches but reasonable under diminished privacy expectations; (c) held the program is not punitive on its face but requires individualized bail-condition findings before imposition; and (d) affirmed remand to Justice Court to allow Spady to withdraw plea and dismiss contempt because no individualized assessment appears in the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Spady) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Delegation to AG for program fees | Statute lawfully authorizes AG rulemaking to set reasonable, program-related fees | AG delegation is unconstitutional because it gives unfettered discretion to set fees | Reversed District Court; statute limits fees to reasonable program costs and is not an improper delegation |
| Search / privacy (breath tests) | Testing is reasonable given diminished privacy of pretrial detainees and public safety need | Breath tests constitute an unreasonable search violating privacy protections | Breath tests are searches but reasonable under diminished expectation of privacy; program constitutional on search grounds |
| Due process / pretrial punishment (fees & testing) | Fees and testing are nonpunitive measures aimed at public safety and are permissible bail conditions | Program and nonrefundable/indeterminate fees are pretrial punishment/excessive bail violating due process | On its face not punitive or excessive, but courts must perform individualized assessments before imposing 24/7 as bail condition; remand affirmed for lack of such assessment in record |
| Vagueness of "second or subsequent" language | Statute is not impermissibly vague / or moot due to later amendments | Phrase is vague (lifetime look-back vs. statutory look-back) | Court declined to decide vagueness (2015 legislative amendment addressed facial concerns; as-applied issue unnecessary given remand) |
Key Cases Cited
- Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602 (breath test constitutes a search)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (test for whether pretrial conditions amount to punishment)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (regarding permissible nonpunitive regulatory measures pretrial)
- Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84 (statute may be nonpunitive despite criminal enforcement)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (diminished privacy of arrestees and reasonableness framework for bodily intrusions)
- State v. McKenzie, 177 Mont. 280, 581 P.2d 1205 (applicability of statutes in effect at time of offense)