United States v. Zimmerman
| Decision Date | 13 July 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:14–PO–01505–MLC |
| Citation | 116 F.Supp.3d 1280 |
| Parties | United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Jeffery Zimmerman, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Wyoming |
Francis Leland Pico, Paige Hammer, Caitlin Hurlock, U.S. Attorney's Office, Yellowstone, NP, for Plaintiff.
Jami L. Rebsom, Jami Rebsom Law Firm PLLC, Livingston, MT, for Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS
This matter comes before this Court upon the Defendant's Motion to Suppress and Dismiss. An evidentiary hearing was held on June 26, 2015. During the hearing the government presented the testimony of Park County Deputy Sheriff Benjamin Bailey and National Park Service Ranger Joseph Bueter.
Shortly after midnight on December 6, 2014, Deputy Benjamin Bailey of the Montana Park County Sheriff's Office observed a vehicle parked across the street from the Blue Goose Saloon. While the Saloon is located in the unincorporated town of Gardiner, Montana, the car was parked within the exterior boundaries of Yellowstone National Park, which is a special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Deputy Bailey observed that the car was running and that there was one individual in the car who was seated in the driver's seat with his head resting on the steering wheel. Deputy Bailey was able to wake up the driver, who appeared "groggy". The driver rolled down his passenger window approximately one inch. Deputy Bailey inquired if the driver was okay, and the driver responded that he was. Deputy Bailey did not detect the odor of alcohol during this brief encounter. Before Deputy Bailey could complete any further investigation he received a radio call to assist Yellowstone Park Ranger Joe Bueter regarding a vehicle located at the Boiling River parking lot, approximately two miles from Gardiner. Deputy Bailey drove to Ranger Bueter's location, at which time he advised Ranger Bueter of the car parked in front of the Blue Goose Saloon with the engine running. Deputy Bailey testified that he was aware that Ranger Bueter's was a licensed paramedic. After receiving the information from Deputy Bailey regarding the parked vehicle in front of the Blue Goose Saloon, Ranger Bueter was concerned about the driver and determined that they should return to Gardiner.
They arrived at the parked vehicle approximately twenty minutes after Deputy Bailey had spoken to the driver and identified as the occupant to be the Defendant, Mr. Jeffrey Zimmerman. A registration check established that the vehicle was registered to the Defendant. In addition to being concerned about the occupant's health and welfare, Ranger Bueter testified that he was also investigating a potential out of bounds camping violation. The vehicle was still parked in the same location with the engine running and the driver resting his head on the top of the steering wheel. The vehicle's interior dome light was on. Ranger Bueter used his flashlight to check the interior the vehicle for visible weapons and ensure that the vehicle was not in gear. The driver did not initially respond to the flashlight or the presence of the officers around the vehicle. Ranger Bueter was able to rouse the driver by knocking on the window and talking. Ranger Bueter requested the driver exit the vehicle. Mr. Zimmerman was asked if he was okay and he replied that he was. Ranger Bueter observed the odor of an alcoholic beverage immediately upon Mr. Zimmerman exiting the vehicle. Mr. Zimmerman volunteered that he had been drinking and admitted to consuming two beers within the last hour at the Blue Goose Saloon. Deputy Bailey explained to Mr. Zimmerman they were concerned he may be having a medical emergency. Mr. Zimmerman was requested to provide his license and vehicle insurance information during which he exhibited poor coordination and fumbling. He was requested to perform standardized field sobriety tests, including horizontal gaze nystagmus
, one-leg stand and walk-and-turn. The Defendant exhibited clues indicative of intoxication on each of the field sobriety tests. A preliminary breath test, or PBT, administered to Mr. Zimmerman yielded a result of 0.16 BAC, twice the legal limit of 0.08 BAC. Mr. Zimmerman was arrested and transported to the Mammoth detention facility within Yellowstone National Park. After the book-in process was completed and he was advised of the federal chemical testing requirements. In particular he was read the following statement:
After reading the advisement, the Ranger advised Mr. Zimmerman that he had the right to refuse the test. Mr. Zimmerman replied that he would complete a test. Mr. Zimmerman agreed to submit to the offered blood test; the blood test was collected by Ranger Wilson, who was qualified to draw blood by the National Park Service. After Mr. Zimmerman agreed to provide a blood sample he expressed concerns about his job. At that time Ranger Bueter explained what would happen in regards to probable bail procedures and, that while he could not make a promise, he had never seen a Park Service employee lose their job as a result of a D.U.I. arrest. In addition, Ranger Bueter agreed to speak on the Defendant's behalf. Mr. Zimmerman never indicated any confusion regarding the testing advisement or any reluctance to provide the requested test. The conversations at the jail facility were friendly and cooperative at all times. The jail staff treated Mr. Zimmerman politely and with respect and Mr. Zimmerman reciprocated.
Laboratory analysis established Mr. Zimmerman's blood alcohol concentration to be 0.145 grams per 100 ml of blood, which is in excess of the legal limit for operation of a motor vehicle. Mr. Zimmerman was not offered an opportunity to obtain his own chemical test of his blood alcohol content.
The Defendant asserts three grounds for the suppression of the chemical alcohol test. First, the Ranger did not have a particularized suspicion to approach or to continue the discussion with the Defendant; second, the Defendant should have been advised of the Montana implied consent law; and finally, the federal implied consent advisement does not comply with constitutional requirements1 .
The parties address this matter as an investigatory detention pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) and its progeny. The initial contact by the county sheriffs deputy was motivated by a concern for the welfare of Mr. Zimmerman. This is understandable as Mr. Zimmerman was sitting in a running vehicle with his head resting on the top of the steering wheel after midnight during the winter. The dome light was on and the windows were closed. The Deputy got Mr. Zimmerman's attention though he appeared "groggy" and only rolled his window down about an inch. Mr. Zimmerman reported that he was okay. Before Deputy Bailey could investigate further he received the call to assist Ranger Bueter. The Defendant does not challenge the Deputy's actions.
Deputy Bailey informed Ranger Bueter of the situation upon their meeting at the Boiling River being aware of Ranger Bueter's medical training. Ranger Bueter immediately decided that Defendant's matter was the priority and both law enforcement officers returned to Defendant's car. Ranger Bueter had three concerns at that time. First, Mr. Zimmerman may be in distress; second, Mr. Zimmerman was engaged in out-of-bounds camping; and third, was Mr. Zimmerman in physical control of an automobile while under the influence of alcohol?
Ranger Bueter was able to get Mr. Zimmerman to respond and requested that Mr. Zimmerman exit the vehicle. Mr. Zimmerman complied and while doing so was asked if he was okay to which Mr. Zimmerman responded he was okay. Mr. Zimmerman was asked what was going on to which he replied that he had been drinking. Ranger Bueter testified that he smelled the odor of an alcoholic beverage on Mr. Zimmerman immediately upon the defendant's exit from the vehicle. Approximately thirty seconds elapses from the time of Ranger Bueter's first words to Mr. Zimmerman's stating he had been drinking. The defense is primarily focused on this time frame. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the officers did not have any reason to reestablish contact with him, as he had already advised Deputy Bailey that he was okay.
There are a number of potential types of contacts between law enforcement officers and the public which implicate the Fourth Amendment2 . Arrest is the most intrusive and is only reasonable if supported by probable cause. United States v. Davis, 94 F.3d 1465, 1468 (10th Cir.1996). The next level of contact is that of the investigatory detention which may result from a reasonable suspicion that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial