State v. Schwein
Montana Supreme Court
16 P.3d 373, 303 Mont. 450 (2000)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Michael Schwein (defendant) leased a space in a private parking lot. During daytime business hours the lot was open to the general public and unleased spaces were in common use by patrons of nearby businesses, but after dark the lot was accessible only to leaseholders. At Schwein's request, the lot's owner would remove unauthorized cars from Schwein's parking space. One night, a police officer noticed a car parked in Schwein's space with its headlights on. The officer investigated and found Schwein asleep in the front seat. The car's engine was not running, but the ignition switch was turned on. When the officer awakened Schwein, he showed obvious signs of drunkenness and refused to take field sobriety tests or a breath test. The officer arrested Schwein. A hospital blood test showed that Schwein had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.229 percent. The State of Montana (plaintiff) prosecuted Schwein for driving under the influence of alcohol (DWI). Montana's DWI statute required the state to prove that, while under the influence of alcohol, Schwein drove or was in actual physical control of a vehicle "upon the ways of the state open to the public." The jury found Schwein guilty, and he appealed his conviction to the Montana Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Leaphart, J.)
Dissent (Trieweiler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.