Introduction
In a significant recent decision, the Montana Supreme Court addressed a key legal question concerning DUI enforcement: Can law enforcement obtain a blood warrant even if a first-time DUI suspect refuses a test under Montana’s implied consent law? This ruling was featured in the March 29, 2025, edition of Montana Law Week, highlighting its importance and potential impact on DUI cases across the state.
Case Background: State v. Clinkenbeard
On September 10, 2022, Trooper Gane stopped Kyler Clinkenbeard for speeding on Highway 93 in Ravalli County. After observing signs of impairment—such as the smell of alcohol, an admission of drinking three beers, and poor performance on field sobriety tests—Gane took Clinkenbeard into custody. Clinkenbeard refused a blood test, but Gane secured a warrant, which revealed a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .101.
Clinkenbeard was charged with first-time DUI and speeding. He moved to suppress the blood test results, arguing that the implied consent statute precluded obtaining a warrant for first-time offenders. However, the District Court denied his motion, and Clinkenbeard pled guilty, reserving his right to appeal. The Montana Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision, affirming that law enforcement could lawfully obtain a warrant if there is probable cause.
The Legal Debate
The crux of the argument revolved around Montana Code Annotated §61-8-1016(4)(a), which outlines conditions under which a test may not be administered without consent. Clinkenbeard contended that this provision barred obtaining a warrant for first-time offenders. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the statute does not apply when officers act pursuant to a valid search warrant obtained with probable cause. The Court emphasized that once a warrant is obtained, the case no longer falls under the implied consent statute.
Dissenting Opinion
The ruling was not unanimous. One Justice dissented, arguing that the majority opinion misinterpreted legislative intent and could undermine DUI enforcement consistency. The dissent warned that the decision might incentivize first-time offenders to refuse tests, potentially complicating future cases.
Practical Implications for Montanans
This ruling clarifies that refusing a blood test does not shield drivers from having their BAC tested if law enforcement can obtain a warrant. As such, individuals stopped for suspected DUI should understand that refusal is not a guaranteed way to avoid evidence collection. Consulting with a defense attorney when facing DUI charges remains crucial to navigating the legal process.
Conclusion
The Montana Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Clinkenbeard is a landmark case for DUI law enforcement in Montana. By affirming the use of search warrants to collect blood samples even when a suspect refuses, the Court reinforced the principle that probable cause is the key factor, not the suspect’s compliance. As this ruling becomes more widely applied, Montanans must stay informed about their rights and responsibilities when stopped on suspicion of DUI.