Cases

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Statutes

Adoption of Federal Regulations

Major Disqualifying Offenses

Major Disqualifying Offenses (Alcohol)

Serious Traffic Offenses (Disqualification)

Disqualification (Railroad Crossing/Out of Service Orders)

Identification of Conviction

Masking Convictions

10-Day Posting Requirement

Controlled Substance Related

Applicability

Resources

News

Broadcast Library

Traffic Jam: How Commercial Drivers Impact Human Trafficking in Courts

Course Description:

This webcast explores the complex and pressing issue of human trafficking (both labor and sex) through the lens of judicial leadership and commercial transportation. This session sheds light on how commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers can play a pivotal role in perpetuating and preventing human trafficking crimes. Participants are guided through foundational frameworks, federal and state legal structures, and real-world implications of trafficking. Emphasis is placed on breaking myths, spotting signs of exploitation, and fostering proactive judicial responses in local contexts.

 

Course Objectives:

After this course, participants will be able to:

  • Understand the forms, tactics, and prevalence of human trafficking, including distinctions between sex and labor trafficking.

  • Gain practical strategies for identifying trafficking indicators and effectively respond to cases in judicial and community contexts, and

  • Comprehend the unique legal frameworks affecting Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) holders, particularly the implications of trafficking-related convictions under the No Human Trafficking on Our Roads Act.

Come to Order – Episode Four

Come on the road with The National Judicial College Judicial Ambassadors as they educate judges on a wide variety of topics related to keeping America’s highways safe including CDL issues, masking, autonomous vehicles, human trafficking and more. If it happens on the highway, we talk about it here.

Episode Four: Autonomous Vehicles – January 16, 2025

In this fourth and final episode on autonomous vehicles, Judges Fowler and Williams-Byers analyze the probable cause and privacy issues that arise with autonomous vehicles. How are level one and two autonomous vehicles hindering basic traffic stops today and what happens if police stop a fully autonomous vehicle with no driver? Judges, listen to find out!

Come to Order – Episode Three

Come on the road with The National Judicial College Judicial Ambassadors as they educate judges on a wide variety of topics related to keeping America’s highways safe including CDL issues, masking, autonomous vehicles, human trafficking and more. If it happens on the highway, we talk about it here.

Episode Three: Autonomous Vehicles – December 30, 2024

In the third episode in our series on autonomous vehicles, Judge Fowler and Judge Williams-Byers analyze how advancements in vehicle technology could impact impaired driving cases. When do drivers have actual physical control over autonomous vehicles and what impact will a law’s use of the word operating versus driving impact a case? Tune in to find out!

Come to Order – Episode Two

Come on the road with The National Judicial College Judicial Ambassadors as they educate judges on a wide variety of topics related to keeping America’s highways safe including CDL issues, masking, autonomous vehicles, human trafficking and more. If it happens on the highway, we talk about it here.

Episode Two: Autonomous Vehicles – December 9, 2024

This episode of Come to Order continues the discussion on autonomous vehicles, focusing on level 4 and level 5 vehicles. The judges discuss the future of passenger vehicles at this level as well as commercial level 4 vehicles that are on the road today.

Come to Order – Episode One

Come on the road with The National Judicial College Judicial Ambassadors as they educate judges on a wide variety of topics related to keeping America’s highways safe including CDL issues, masking, autonomous vehicles, human trafficking and more. If it happens on the highway, we talk about it here.

Episode One: Autonomous Vehicles – December 2, 2024

The first of a four-part series on autonomous vehicles, this episode introduces judges to levels 0-2 vehicles in the autonomous vehicle taxonomy and discusses emerging legal issues starting to appear in courtrooms. Level 1 and Level 2 (which includes Tesla cars and trucks) are prevalent on the roads across the country today. Judicial Ambassadors Judge Thomas Fowler from Arkansas and Judge Gayle Williams-Byers lead the discussion. Hosted by NJC Communications Director Barbara Peck.

Ethically Handling Commercial Drivers in Criminal & Traffic Courts

Course Description:

Every year, over half a million crashes on American highways involve commercial motor vehicles. These crashes result in enough fatalities to wipe out the entire population of more than any one of half of America’s towns. Many involve repeat violators, some of whom would not have been on the road if Federal and state CDL/CMV laws were properly and ethically enforced.

Judges who handle cases involving commercial driver’s licenses and commercial motor vehicles are often unaware of Federal regulations and state laws that require courts to treat commercial drivers differently than noncommercial drivers, even when a traffic violation has been committed in a personal or family vehicle.

This subject is one all judges must understand. Most misdemeanor and felony court judges don’t realize these laws may apply to cases where no traffic violation is even alleged. Many high-volume traffic courts are unaware of the need to establish special procedures for the handling of CDL/CMV cases.

Course Objectives:
After this course, participants will be able to:
• Identify applicable Federal and state CDL/CMV laws;
• Determine what constitutes “masking”;
• Discover the unique definition of a “conviction” under CDL/CMV laws;
• Recognize the legal, financial and social consequences of failures to enforce CDL/CMV laws;
• Detect the ethical implications of mishandling CDL/CMV cases;
• Apply recent expungement laws to holders of commercial driver licenses; and
• Develop ethical and efficient procedures for the handling of CDL/CMV cases in your court.