Goldsmith v. Department of Justice, Drivers License Bureau ( 2007 )

No. DA 06-0746
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2007 MT 221____________________________________
)
JESSE GOLDSMITH, )
)
Petitioner and Appellant, ) OPINION
) AND
v. ) ORDER
)
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DRIVERS )
LICENSE BUREAU, )
)
Respondent and Respondent. )
____________________________________)
¶1 On May 27, 2006, Appellant Jesse Goldsmith was stopped by University of
Montana Public Safety Officer Christopher Croft. He was asked to submit a breath
sample on a Portable Breath Test device and refused. He was then arrested for driving
while under the influence of an intoxicating substance, and transported to the detention
center in Missoula where he was asked to submit a breath sample for blood alcohol
analysis. Goldsmith’s driver’s license was then taken from him for refusing to submit to
testing of his breath to determine alcohol concentration in his blood. His driver’s license
was later suspended by the Department of Justice.
¶2 On June 22, 2006, Goldsmith filed a petition in the District Court for the Fourth
Judicial District, Missoula County, to have his driver’s license restored pursuant to § 61-
8-403, MCA. The petition was heard on October 26, 2006. At the hearing Goldsmith
argued, through counsel, that Officer Croft did not have the necessary particularized
suspicion required to stop him and, therefore, he was not lawfully under arrest and his
driver’s license must be restored. A particularized suspicion to justify an investigative
stop must be proven with objective data from which an experienced officer can make
certain inferences, and a resulting suspicion that a person is or has been engaged in
wrongdoing. Whether a particularized suspicion exists to justify an investigative stop is a
question of fact which depends on the totality of the circumstances. Morris v. State,
2001 MT 13, ¶ 9, 304 Mont. 114, ¶ 9, 18 P.3d 1003, ¶ 9.
¶3 At the conclusion of the hearing, the District Court stated:
THE COURT: Well, there is no question that when Officer Croft
saw the vehicle on Arthur and East Central, it appeared to be stopped, and
bordering on driving towards the sidewalk.
He then decided to follow the vehicle that was driven by Mr.
Goldsmith, and when he followed the vehicle on Maurice Avenue, he
noticed the vehicle was coming to almost a stop at each intersection, and
finally, to a complete stop on Evans Avenue.
My difficulty in the matter is substituting my judgment for that of
the street cop, and what stands out to that officer, and raises flags that
there may be a driver who is impaired, and the officer decides to make a
stop. I yield to the officer’s experience.
And, therefore, I deny the petition to reinstate the driver’s license.
¶5 A petition to reinstate a driver’s license under § 61-8-403, MCA, is a civil action.
State ex rel. Majerus v. Carter, 214 Mont. 272, 278, 693 P.2d 501, 505 (1984). The
District Court made no findings of fact or conclusions of law as required by M. R. Civ. P.
52(a). Nor does the transcript contain sufficient information for this Court to determine
the factual and legal basis of the District Court’s decision. Further, no judgment on the
petition was entered as provided by M. R. Civ. P. 54.
¶6 Because no findings of fact, no conclusions of law and no judgment were entered
in the District Court, this Court does not have sufficient information upon which to base
its review.
2
¶7 NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. This APPEAL is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and REMANDED to
the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, for entry of findings
of fact, conclusions of law and a judgment, as required by the Montana Rules of Civil
Procedure.
2. The Clerk of this Court shall mail a copy of this order to the presiding judge of
the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, and to all counsel of
record.
DATED this 5TH day of September 2007.
/S/ KARLA M. GRAY
/S/ JOHN WARNER
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
3