DUI - First, Second, and Third Violation Penalties

In Montana, driving under the influence (DUI) charges have serious potential jail time, fines, mandatory time-consuming and financially straining assessments and programs, a mandatory driver’s license suspension, and prohibitive conditions. The information provided here discusses first, second, and third non-aggravated DUI violations and the typical penalties associated with those offenses. Fourth and subsequent DUIs are not discussed here.

Montana DUI penalties increase in severity with the number of subsequent violations.

This information does not include any other offenses or aggravating factors that often occur when a person is charged with a DUI. It also omits more rare but available terms of sentences. This information is for the charge of DUI only. If a person is charged with additional offenses and/or there are aggravating factors, then additional penalties under those additional offenses and/or aggravating factors would apply.

Each case is factually unique and the circumstances of the DUI violation matter. It is critical to hire an attorney who knows your rights and defenses in addition to the tendencies of the local courts and the culture of the local county or city attorney to secure the best results.

DUI - First Violation

A person convicted of their first DUI violation can be sentenced to jail for not less than 24 consecutive hours or no more than six (6) months.

In addition to jail time, the fine is not less than $600 or more than $1,000.

A person must also complete a chemical dependency assessment and a chemical dependency education course which is twelve (12) hours long. The assessment must describe the defendant's level of addiction, if any, and contain a recommendation as to education, treatment, or both.

The chemical dependency assessment and the chemical dependency education course must be completed at a treatment program approved by the Department of Public Health and Human Services and must be conducted by a licensed addiction counselor. Approved programs must be evidence-based programs.

The court may also require a person to participate in a 24/7 sobriety and drug monitoring program or require a person to participate in a court-approved alcohol or drug detection testing program and to pay the fees associated with the program.

Also, there is a mandatory driver’s license suspension for six (6) months. There are options to seek a probationary license during this time.

DUI - Second Violation

A person convicted of their second DUI violation can be sentenced to jail for not less than 7 days or more than one (1) year in jail.

In addition to jail time, the fine is not less than $1,200 or more than $2,000.

A person must also complete a chemical dependency assessment and chemical dependency treatment.

The treatment provided to the person at a treatment program must be at a level appropriate to the person’s alcohol or drug problem, or both, as determined by a licensed addiction counselor pursuant to diagnosis and patient placement rules adopted by the Department of Public Health and Human Services.

A person may attend a treatment program of the defendant's choice as long as the treatment services are provided by a licensed addiction counselor. A person shall pay the cost of the assessment, the education course, and chemical dependency treatment and may use health insurance to cover the costs when possible.

The court must also require a person to participate in a 24/7 sobriety and drug monitoring program or require a person to participate in a court-approved alcohol or drug detection testing program and to pay the fees associated with the program.

Also, there is a mandatory driver’s license suspension for one (1) year if the first violation occurred within 10 years of the second violation. There are options to seek a probationary license during this time.

DUI - Third Violation

A person convicted of their third DUI violation can be sentenced to jail for not less than 30 days or more than one (1) year in jail.

In addition to jail time, the fine is not less than $2,500 or more than $5,000.

A person must also complete a chemical dependency assessment and chemical dependency treatment.

The treatment provided to the defendant at a treatment program must be at a level appropriate to the defendant's alcohol or drug problem, or both, as determined by a licensed addiction counselor pursuant to diagnosis and patient placement rules adopted by the Department of Public Health and Human Services.

The defendant may attend a treatment program of the defendant's choice as long as the treatment services are provided by a licensed addiction counselor. The defendant shall pay the cost of the assessment, the education course, and chemical dependency treatment and may use health insurance to cover the costs when possible.

The court must also require a person to participate in a 24/7 sobriety and drug monitoring program or require a person to participate in a court-approved alcohol or drug detection testing program and to pay the fees associated with the program.

Also, there is a mandatory driver’s license suspension for one (1) year and the court must consider all previous offenses for sentencing purposes. There are options to seek a probationary license during this time.

Conclusion

The penalties related to DUI offenses can drastically affect a person’s life. Hiring the right attorney to provide a formidable defense and secure the best results is critical when a person faces a DUI charge.

Call us today if you need a competent and aggressive DUI attorney.

All information displayed on the Kris A. McLean Law Firm, PLLC website is informational and shall not be deemed as legal advice.

Driving Under the Influence - Your Rights During a Traffic Stop

Driving under the influence (DUI) offenses affect the cross-section of American society and no one is infallible when it comes to being involved in a DUI incident. It’s a mistake that no one wants to make but it happens. A lawyer who knows your constitutional rights during a traffic stop can make a huge difference in the outcome of your case and may be able to suppress the government’s evidence against you (the breathalyzer taken at the jail, field sobriety test results, your statements to law enforcement, etc.) if law enforcement violated your rights during the traffic stop and/or during the field sobriety tests and subsequent arrest.

First, many people do not realize that roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute a custodial interrogation subject to the procedural safeguards of Miranda. State v. Allen, 1998 MT 293, ¶ 11. This means law enforcement is not required to provide you with Miranda warnings at the outset of a traffic stop. Indeed, they do not have to provide Miranda warnings until you are considered “in custody” which generally, with exceptions, is when a person is put under arrest, handcuffed, and placed in the back of a police vehicle for transport to the jail.

So how are you supposed to respond to law enforcement during a traffic stop? Respectfully without talking any more than you have to.

Constitutional rights

Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures. These protections apply to investigative stops of vehicles. Montana law provides that “a peace officer may stop any person or vehicle that is observed in circumstances that create a particularized suspicion that the person or occupant of the vehicle has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.” Section 46–5–401(1), MCA.

Upon a lawful investigatory traffic stop, police may generally request identification, and/or any available proof of identification, of the subject of the particularized suspicion, his or her present address, and “an explanation of the person's actions” regarding the particularized suspicion that justified the stop. State v. Noli, 2023 MT 84, ¶ 34.

The officer may also attempt to verify information provided by the subject, and ask for other related information, as long as the additional inquiry is both reasonably related in scope to the particularized suspicion and purpose that justified the stop and does not unreasonably prolong its duration under the totality of the circumstances at issue. Moreover, in furtherance of the government's generally compelling interest in highway safety regulation, routine police database checks (i.e., checks for outstanding wants/warrants, driver's license and vehicle registration status, and stolen/missing vehicle reports) are “ordinary inquiries incident to” lawful investigative traffic stops and thus permissible as long as conducted in a reasonably quick and diligent manner. Noli, ¶ 34.

If “based on additional specific and articulable facts observed or discovered during the lawful scope and duration of the initial stop,” police may also “lawfully expand or prolong the scope or duration of an investigative stop beyond its initial justification upon the development of a new or expanded particularized suspicion of criminal activity.” Noli, ¶ 35.

Field sobriety tests constitute a search under both the United States Constitution and the Montana Constitution. Accordingly, field sobriety tests require particularized suspicion that a driver is impaired. To establish particularized suspicion for field sobriety tests, a peace officer need not rely solely on the facts supporting the investigative stop. A lawful stop can escalate based upon an officer's subsequent observations. Id. However, the investigation must still remain, “within the limits created by the facts upon which the stop is predicated and the suspicion which they arouse.” Larson, ¶ 25.

State’s burden of proof

The State bears the burden of proving that an officer had particularized suspicion to stop a vehicle by showing: (1) objective data and articulable facts from which an experienced officer can make certain inferences, and (2) a resulting suspicion that the occupant of a certain vehicle is or has been engaged in wrongdoing or was a witness to criminal activity. Whether particularized suspicion exists is dependent upon a totality of the circumstances. State v. Larson, 2010 MT 236, ¶ 19. Officers must have particularized suspicion to constitute a lawful stop.

An example helps illustrate how these rules apply to a real-world situation:

If an officer only observed an individual driving with a broken taillight and after making his initial stop he did not observe any signs of intoxication, he would not have particularized suspicion that the driver was driving under the influence, and, therefore, would be prohibited from administering field sobriety tests. By contrast, if an officer stops a driver for a broken taillight and upon approaching this driver the officer does observe signs of intoxication, for example, the driver's breath smells of alcohol, his eyes are bloodshot and glassy, or his speech is slurred, the officer would have a separate particularized suspicion that the individual was driving under the influence of alcohol, and, therefore, may administer field sobriety tests. If the driver should fail the field sobriety tests, the officer would then have probable cause to arrest this individual for driving under the influence of alcohol. State v. Steinmetz, ¶ 13. And, normally, it is at the time a person is put under arrest when the person is considered “in custody” and Miranda warnings attach.

DUI’s can have a significant impact on a person’s employment and personal life, not to mention their record. The assistance of a competent DUI lawyer who steadfastly fights for your rights is essential for a good outcome. Call us today.

All information displayed on the Kris A. McLean Law Firm, PLLC website is informational and shall not be deemed as legal advice.