Montana

CASES
  • Click here to download all Montana cases
  • Anderson v. State, 339 Mont. 113 (2007)
    IMPLIED CONSENT Motorist who was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) filed petition seeking reinstatement of his driver's license. The District Court, Ninth Judicial District, Toole County, Marc G. Buyske, P.J., denied petition. Motorist appealed. The Supreme Court, Jim Rice, J., held that officer's misreading of implied consent law did not invalidate motorist's refusal to submit to breath test. Affirmed.
  • Brown v. State, 349 Mont. 408 (2009)
    IMPLIED CONSENT Driver petitioned for reinstatement of driver's license following refusal to submit to chemical testing under implied consent law. The Twelfth Judicial District Court, Hill County, John C. McKeon, J., denied reinstatement. Driver appealed. The Supreme Court, James C. Nelson, J., held that: [1] there is no requirement that an investigating officer have a specific amount of experience in law enforcement to form a particularized suspicion or find probable cause, abrogating State v. Gopher, 193 Mont. 189, 631 P.2d 293, State v. Schatz, 194 Mont. 59, 634 P.2d 1193, and State v. Morsette, 201 Mont. 233, 654 P.2d 503, and [2] officer had reasonable grounds to believe that motorist was driving under the influence of alcohol. Affirmed.
  • Chain v. State, Dept. of Justice, Motor Vehicle Div., 322 Mont. 381 (2004)
    After driver's application for a driver's license was denied, due to driver's driving privileges being revoked in Michigan, he filed a complaint that requested that the Department of Justice, Motor Vehicle Division, grant his application. The District Court, Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, Ted O. Lympus, J., granted the Department of Justice, Motor Vehicle Division, summary judgment. Driver appealed. The Supreme Court, Patricia O. Cotter, J., held that the Department's decision to deny driver a Montana driver's license was not an abuse of discretion. Affirmed.
  • In re License Suspension of Cybulski, 343 Mont. 56 (2008)
    Motorist petitioned for reinstatement of her driver's license, which had been suspended after she refused to submit to a chemical test. After a hearing, the District Court, Sixteenth Judicial District, County of Custer, Gary L. Day, J., reinstated the motorist's driver's license. The state appealed. The Supreme Court, W. William Leaphart, J., held that: [1] deputy had particularized suspicion that motorist was driving under influence of alcohol, and [2] deputy had probable cause to arrest motorist for driving under influence of alcohol. Reversed.
  • In re Suspension of Driving Privilege of Alexanders, 322 Mont. 528 (2004)
    IMPLIED CONSENT Non-commercial driver filed a petition challenging the suspension of his driving privileges after sheriff deputy mistakenly completed and provided driver with suspension of commercial driver's license form, instead of non-commercial form. The 18th Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, Mike Salvagni, J., denied driver's petition. Driver appealed. The Supreme Court, James C. Nelson, J., held that driver's refusal to submit to preliminary breath test (PBT) after being read non-commercial implied consent advisories was sufficient cause to suspend his driver's license. Affirmed.
  • Jess v. State ex rel. Records and Driver Control, 347 Mont. 381 (2008)
    Motorist petitioned for reinstatement of her drivers' license, which had been suspended after she refused to take a preliminary breath alcohol test. The District Court, Twenty–Second Judicial District, County of Stillwater, Blair Jones, J., denied the petition. Motorist appealed. The Supreme Court, W. William Leaphart, J., held that: [1] deputy retained his peace-officer power to arrest motorist for driving under the influence (DUI) even though deputy allegedly had not completed a peace-officer basic course by the time of the arrest, and [2] deputy had a particularized suspicion that motorist was driving under the influence, and thus motorist was not entitled to reinstatement of her drivers' license. Affirmed.
  • Muller v. State, Dept. of Justice, 364 Mont. 328 (2012)
    Motorist filed petition for reinstatement of driver's license that he had been automatically suspended under informed consent law by Department of Justice, Motor Vehicle Division. The 16th Judicial District Court, Rosebud County, Joe L. Hegel, J., denied reinstatement, and motorist appealed.The Supreme Court, Brian Morris, Presiding Judge, held that existing circumstances justified immediate, warrantless arrest for driving under influence (DUI), such that motorist's refusal to submit breath test required automatic suspension of driver's license. Affirmed.
  • Nichols v. Department of Justice, Driver's License Bureau, 359 Mont. 251 (2011)
    IMPLIED CONSENT Licensee sought review of decision of Department of Justice (DOJ), Driver's License Bureau suspending her driver's license. The District Court, Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, Ed McLean, Presiding Judge, denied petition to set aside suspension. Licensee appealed. The Supreme Court, Brian Morris, J., held that: [1] officer's request for breath test did not constitute unreasonable search or seizure; [2] officer's seizure of license did not constitute unreasonable seizure; and [3] implied consent laws did not unlawfully infringe on rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Affirmed.
  • Wagstaff v. Montana Dept. of Justice, Motor Vehicle Div., 323 Mont. 536 (2004)
    Dale Wagstaff (Wagstaff) appeals from the order entered by the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, dismissing his petition for issuance of a probationary commercial driver's license. We affirm.
  • Weer v. State, 358 Mont. 130 (2010)
    Motorist petitioned for reinstatement of his drivers' license, which had been suspended after he refused to take a preliminary breath alcohol test after he was cited for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). The District Court, County of Missoula, John W. Larson, Presiding Judge, denied petition. Motorist appealed. The Supreme Court, Patricia O. Cotter, J., held that officer had sufficient facts to form a particularized suspicion to initiate an investigative stop. Affirmed.
STATUTES

Adoption of Federal Regulations

What Constitutes a CMV

Major Disqualifying Offenses

Major Disqualifying Offenses (Alcohol)

Serious Traffic Offenses

Identification of Conviction

  • No reference.

Masking Convictions

10-Day Posting Requirement

Other CDL Provisions