Brunette v. State
2016 MT 128
| Mont. | 2016Background
- At 12:54 a.m. officers became aware of Christopher Brunette’s parked vehicle; after locating it, Officer Brotnov followed Brunette and stopped him at ~1:40 a.m. for failing to use a turn signal.
- Before approaching the car Officer Brotnov asked dispatch to begin the suggested deprivation period; on contact he smelled alcohol, noted red/watery eyes and slurred speech, and Brunette admitted drinking.
- Officer Brotnov administered field sobriety tests including a portable breath test (PBT) that read 0.143; Brunette later refused an Intoxilyzer breath test and his license was suspended under § 61-8-402.
- Brunette petitioned to reinstate his license under § 61-8-403, arguing the stop was pretextual and that officers’ conduct (including alleged high beams and prior plate check) and video evidence would show the stop was improper.
- The district court found the stop objectively reasonable (citing the turn-signal violation and indicators of impairment), expressed concerns about officer conduct, directed supplemental briefing, and denied reinstatement; the Montana Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Brunette’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in denying reinstatement (i.e., was the stop lawful) | The stop was pretextual — officers coordinated, ran plates earlier, used high beams, and may have caused or targeted the stop; dash/body-cam and fuller radio transcript would show misconduct | Turn-signal statutory violation provided particularized suspicion for the stop; officers’ subsequent observations supported investigation | Affirmed: the turn-signal violation alone gave particularized suspicion; no evidence the officers caused the violation and the stop was objectively reasonable |
| Whether appellate record may include dash/body-cam and full radio transcript | Videos and full transcript show pretext and inconsistencies; videos were played at hearing | Those materials were not offered into evidence and are outside the district-court record | Videos excluded on appeal (not in record); a portion of the radio transcript that was in the district-court file may be considered |
| Whether officer had reasonable grounds to administer sobriety tests | Officer lacked objective indicators prior to testing; some officer observations were inconsistent or unreliable | Officer observed odor of alcohol, red/watery eyes, slurred speech, difficulty producing license, and the PBT showed 0.143 — these establish particularized suspicion | Held: Officer had particularized suspicion to conduct sobriety tests based on observed indicia of impairment and the PBT result |
| Whether there was probable cause to arrest and whether district court’s findings were adequate | District court’s findings were insufficient and court failed to weigh credibility; implied findings cannot substitute for analysis | Court’s oral and written findings and doctrine of implied findings provide basis; evidence supports probable cause | Held: probable cause existed (PBT + observations); oral findings and implied findings are adequate and failure to state probable cause explicitly is not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Kummerfeldt v. State, 347 P.3d 1233 (Mont. 2015) (standard of review and particularized suspicion for stops)
- Ditton v. DOJ Motor Vehicle Div., 319 P.3d 1268 (Mont. 2014) (limits on issues in license-reinstatement proceedings)
- Brown v. State, 203 P.3d 842 (Mont. 2009) (officer observations supporting particularized suspicion and probable cause)
- Farabee v. State, 22 P.3d 175 (Mont. 2000) (pretext inquiry and reliance on objective particularized suspicion)
- State v. Lahr, 560 P.2d 527 (Mont. 1977) (pretextual stop where officers caused or manufactured violation)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (subjective officer motivation irrelevant to Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- Hulse v. DOJ, 961 P.2d 75 (Mont. 1998) (field sobriety tests are searches requiring particularized suspicion)