*1 GARY GRINDELAND, Respondent, Petitioner v.
STATE OF MONTANA, Respondent Appellant. No. 00-357. February 8,
Submitted on Briefs
2001.
September 25,
Decided
BACKGROUND 23, 1999, County Deputy Cascade evening of November On the ¶3 (Van in the area of Dyken) patrolling Scott Van Sheriff Great citizen anonymous of an Falls, Montana, he received information when to Dyken proceeded a careless driver. Van regarding complaint and, a vehicle while he observed complaint specified the location lot of a fast food parking description matching restaurant, reported in his activity which immediately observe he did not of the vehicle. would opinion again, saw block, the restaurant drove around Eventually, the follow it. began and to parking the vehicle lot vehicle exit intersection turn at an right-hand make a deputy observed stop. He a traffic he then initiated a turn and using without to the maneuvers improper no other observed driver, Dyken arresting in Van stop culminated The traffic ¶4 of alcohol. the influence driving under identified as The County Sheriffs Cascade to the transported Grindeland Grindeland sample. him to submit breath requested Office and his seized and and, driver’s license was his refused privileges suspended as 61-8-402(4) -402(6), MCA. to pursuant §§ to reinstate the District Court subsequently petitioned ¶5 which resulted arguing that the driving privileges, his his arrest was illegal. He contended right-hand he made have had a could not committed a petition, Following traffic offense. failing law violate the did not Court concluded District to stop was not Dyken’s traffic his turn supported by a particularized suspicion that an offense had occurred. conclusions, Based on these the court petition Grindeland’s reinstated his privileges. The State appeals.
STANDARDOF REVIEW Our review of a district court’s on a ruling petition to reinstate a driver’s license is twofold. We review the findings court’s of fact to determine clearly whether erroneous and we review its determine conclusions of law to are correct. Williams v. State, 5, 9, 36, 9, 1999 MT ¶ ¶ ¶
DISCUSSION Did the District Court err in petition reinstate his driver’s license? Grindeland brought petition to reinstate his driver’s license
pursuant MCA. That statute limits the District Court’s review of whether Van had reasonable grounds to believe Grindeland had been driving or was in actual physical control of a upon ways of this open public to the alcohol; while under the influence of placed Grindeland was arrest; and he refused to submit to one designated by or more tests Dyken. 61-8-403(4)(a), Section conceded in the District Court that he refused to submit to the requested by breath test Dyken. argued, He *3 however, that the deputy did not grounds have reasonable to believe under the influence of alcohol as a illegal. arrest was More specifically, Dyken’s he contended Van traffic stop supported by a particularized suspicion that Grindeland had committed an offense because his failure to use a turn signal did not violate the law. He further contended Dyken’s Van determination that Grindeland was driving under the influence of alcohol was based on observed no indication gained subsequent evidence to the traffic stop, as the had to the stop that Grindeland have Thus, been intoxicated. according to absent the evidence gained illegal stop, traffic Van did not have reasonable grounds to believe Grindeland was under the influence of that, circumstances, alcohol. The District Court concluded under the Grindeland was not his right-hand turn Dyken’s Van traffic stop supported by particularized was not a suspicion that committed an offense. Based on these conclusions, the court further concluded that did not have grounds- reasonable believe Grindeland was under the influence of alcohol and the petition. The State asserts that the District Court’s conclusion that Van did not have a particularized suspicion that Grindeland had committed an offense is
265 erroneous. making an grounds” standard “reasonable MCA, effective 61-8-403(4)(a)(i), is the under § investigative test for an suspicion” “particularized of equivalent (1996), Justice Dept. 46-5-401, v. State MCA.Anderson stop 275 Mont. § of omitted). (citation An 212, 214 263, 259, manifestation objective by some justified must investigative to at committed, committing or is about is has stopped person 263, P.2d Anderson, at 912 a criminal offense. commit a law to determine Thus, two-part a test apply we 214. enforcement officer an suspicion particularized had sufficient data First, required to show is investigative from which inferences. make certain officer could experienced an of occupant suspicion that resulting a Second, state must show wrongdoing. in some engaged is or has been question the vehicle 263, 912 214. Whether a Anderson, P.2d at 275 Mont. at by examining the fact determined question exists is suspicion investigative stop. surrounding the totality of the circumstances P.2d at 214. Mont. at stop of an Here, Dyken initiated ¶11 Grindeland’s vehicle had committed based on a belief in violation of to use his turn by failing an offense shall not turn provides That statute MCA. in the event other signal... giving appropriate
“without 61-8-336(1), movement.” Section may be affected such there the turn. may other traffic which is on Grindeland’s at the Dyken testified ¶12 other vehicles were vicinity the time Grindeland at argues presence his turn. The State intersection and made vehicles necessarily means those vicinity Dyken’s supports have been affected Grindeland’s he had a reasonable determination that committed an offense turn, thereby justifying signal his by failing to record, disagree. this we investigative stop. On noticed other vehicles Dyken testified he Although Van in relation to vehicles the location of those vicinity, he could not recall it was He further testified vehicle. and Grindeland’s the intersection by the time he already had passed possible the vehicles vehicles, the location of knowledge of his turn. Absent made have been reasonably have determined Dyken could not *4 Dyken turn. by Grindeland’s affected infer that by data which to insufficient have been affected by turn. did not have sufficient We conclude suspicion to justify an investigative stop of Grindeland’s vehicle the District Court’s conclusion in regard is correct. We
hold, the District Court did not err in to reinstate his driver’s license. ¶15 Affirmed. TRIEWEILER,
JUSTICES NELSON and REGNIER concur. JUSTICE LEAPHART dissenting. I dissent.
¶17 Officer Van initiated the stop of Grindeland’s upon vehicle based Grindeland’s failure right to use his turn signal in violation of § MCA. The statute requires shall not turn a vehicle “without giving an appropriate signal... in the event any other be by affected such movement.” This Court concludes that a to use a turn signal when there fact, is traffic may, which be by affected turn. Van testified that there were other cars in the area at the time of the turn. However, he could not recall the location of those vehicles in relation to the intersection where Grindeland was executing the turn. Accordingly, the Court reasons that could not have reasonably determined may have been affected Grindeland’s turn. The Court’s interpretation of the statute is unreasonable. Under interpretation,
the Court’s the State particular must show that a was, affected the lack signal. of a turn This burden (1) require will one of things: officer, two that the instead focusing his/her attention suspected driver, chase down other vehicles to ascertain were affected the suspect’s lack of a right (2) hand turn signal, or the officer make arbitrary some assumptions based on the relative location of the “other traffic”: for example, that a vehicle approaching from the other direction will not affected; that a vehicle approaching from the might left or that a vehicle approaching right will not be affected. None of these assumptions necessarily true. The officer cannot divine whether another vehicle was in fact affected only unless he knows not the location of the other vehicle but also what the other vehicle was itself-turn, going forward, to do stop, continue etc. That is an impossible If turn, burden. there is traffic present at the time of the law, necessity, assumes that that traffic have been affected the turn. The State should not be saddled with the impossible showing burden of that the other traffic was in fact affected. I would reverse the decision of the District Court.