1 / 16

Erin Inman Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor etinman@qwestoffice.net (406) 449-1255

Surviving License Reinstatement Hearings . Erin Inman Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor etinman@qwestoffice.net (406) 449-1255. Today’s Topics. -Montana’s (and your) approach to these challenges -Legal justification for reinstatement -How is this different from the criminal case?

dillon
Télécharger la présentation

Erin Inman Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor etinman@qwestoffice.net (406) 449-1255

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Surviving License Reinstatement Hearings Erin Inman Traffic Safety Resource Prosecutor etinman@qwestoffice.net (406) 449-1255

  2. Today’s Topics -Montana’s (and your) approach to these challenges -Legal justification for reinstatement -How is this different from the criminal case? -What effect does this have on the criminal case?

  3. Why do we suspend? • Deterrent: Encourages citizens to make good choices • Punishment: Facilitates future changes in behavior • The feds embrace these philosophies: Transportation Efficiency Act of the 21st Century

  4. Why do we suspend? “The law must impose a mandatory minimum one year driver's license suspension or revocation on all repeat offenders. The suspension must be a hard suspension with no hardship waivers and no interlocks.” -tied to federal funding

  5. Montana’s (and your) approach to these challenges Handled two different ways throughout the state: 1. Negotiating tool as part of the criminal case 2. Not a bargaining chip in the criminal case WHY THE DIFFERENCE?

  6. Why the difference? • 1. Judge philosophy • 2. Prosecutor philosophy • 3. Historical training/ practice

  7. How do other states handle suspension hearings? -Most states keep the criminal matter and the suspension completely separate. -Some states do not clearly delineate suspension/ revocation matters.

  8. Legal justification for challenging suspension Mont. Code Ann. § 61-8-403 (2009). 1. Were there reasonable grounds to believe a. Person was DUI and b. Person was under arrest 2. Was the person a. Under 21 and b. Under arrest for “Baby (.02) DUI” 3. Was there a. Probable cause to believe person was DUI and b. Crash resulting in serious bodily injury or death     4. Did the person refuse to submit to one or more tests?

  9. Legal justification for challenging suspension Mont. Code Ann. § 61-8-403 (2009). 1. Were there reasonable grounds to believe a. Person was DUI and b. Person was under arrest Reasonable grounds = particularized suspicion Grindeland v. State, 2001 MT 196, ¶ 10, 306 Mont. 262, ¶ 10, 32 P.3d 767, ¶ 10.

  10. Legal justification for challenging suspension Strategy: Limit the evidence and arguments to those outlined in Section 403.

  11. Legal justification for challenging suspension The Process: Defendant must file a petition with the District Court within 30 days. The District Court then has to give notice to the prosecutor of the hearing. *and then the defendant delays until after the criminal trial

  12. How are these hearings different from the criminal case? • 1. The defendant files the petition • 2. The defendant carries the burden • 3. Civil rules apply • Prevailing party awarded costs. Neal v. Montana, 2003 MT 53. IS THIS COOL OR WHAT!?

  13. How are these hearings different from the criminal case? • 1. Defense counsel cannot ask leading questions • 2. You get to ask leading questions • 3. Discovery process • Defendant must respond to discovery requests • State must respond to discovery requests • Sanction for failure to comply is reinstatement. Patterson v. Dept. of Justice, 2002 MT 97, 309 M 381, 46 P3d 642 (2002).

  14. How are these hearings different from the criminal case? • A presumption of correctness attaches to the State's act of suspending or revoking a driver's license. The driver bears the burden of proving that the suspension or revocation of a driver's license was improper.State v. Krause (2002), 2002 MT 63, P 27, 309 Mont. 174, 179, 44 P.3d 493, 497; Kleinsasser v. State (2002), 2002 Mont. 36, P 10, 308 Mont. 325, 327 -28, 42 P.3d 801, 803-04; [**8]  and Hulse v. State, Dept. of Justice (1998), 1998 MT 108, P 14, 289 Mont. 1, 961 P.2d 75, (citing Jess v. State, Dept. of Justice (1992), 255 Mont. 254, 259 -60, 841 P.2d 1137, 1140 overruled on other grounds by Bush v. State, Dept. of Justice, 1998 MT 270, 291 Mont. 359, 968 P.2d 716 ).

  15. What effect does this have on the criminal case? • Issue preclusion? • Practical result • You have sworn testimony of a witness with the defendant present and capable of questioning: May be able to use the testimony in your criminal case

  16. THANK YOU!

More Related