State v. Price , 2007 MT 68N ( 2007 )

No. DA 06-0568
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2007 MT 68NSTATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
SCOTT ALLEN PRICE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District,
In and For the County of Prairie, Cause No. DC 2006-002,
Honorable Richard A. Simonton, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Brad L. Arndorfer, Arndorfer Law Firm, P.C., Billings, Montana
For Respondent:
Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, Pamela P. Collins,
Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Erin T. Inman, Prairie County Attorney, Terry, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: February 28, 2007
Decided: March 13, 2007
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2003, the following memorandum decision shall not be
cited as precedent. Its case title, Supreme Court cause number and disposition shall be
included in this Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific
Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Scott Allen Price (Price) appeals from the District Court’s May 8, 2006 Order
denying his motion to suppress the results of a blood test taken as a result of his arrest for
DUI on December 18, 2004. Price argues on appeal that he was coerced into giving a
blood test although he was afraid of needles, and that his fear of needles was overborne
by the arresting officer’s refusal to give him any alternative test knowing that he had a
fear of needles. Price contends that he repeatedly asked for an alternate test before the
blood test was given. Price relies on Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir.
1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 981, 119 S. Ct. 444, 142 L. Ed. 2d 399 (1998); Wessell v.
State, Dept. of Justice, 277 Mont. 234, 921 P.2d 264 (1996); and State v. Minkoff, 2002
MT 29, 308 Mont. 248, 42 P.3d 223.
¶3 The State argues that the arresting officer took Price to the Terry, Montana facility
because of the location of the stop and the relative distances from the stop to Terry,
Glendive, and Miles City, and because the arresting officer wanted to accommodate Price
in obtaining a ride from his sister in Terry. The State argues that the court properly found
that Price consented to the blood test and that he did not desire an independent test. The
2
State contends that the court’s findings of fact are based upon substantial evidence and
are not otherwise clearly erroneous.
¶4 This Court reviews a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress to determine
whether its findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its interpretation and
application of the law is correct. State v. Ellington, 2006 MT 219, ¶ 9, 333 Mont. 411,
¶ 9, 143 P.3d 119, ¶ 9 (citing State v. Pierce, 2005 MT 182, ¶ 12, 328 Mont. 33, ¶ 12, 116
P.3d 817, ¶ 12).
¶5 Having reviewed the record in this matter, we have determined to decide this case
pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our 1996 Internal Operating Rules, as amended
in 2003, which provides for memorandum opinions. It is manifest on the face of the
briefs and the record before us that the appeal is without merit because the court’s
findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and because the legal issues are
clearly controlled by settled Montana law which the District Court correctly interpreted.
¶6 Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s Order entered May 8, 2006.
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
We Concur:
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ JIM RICE
3