City of Billings v. D. Nolan, 383 P.3d 219

On June 20, 2013, Beth and Emily Jones were chased and threatened by a white four-door Cadillac; they reported the driver as a young Black male in a white tank-top but could not get the plate.
BPD Officer Jeremy Boeckel observed a white Cadillac shortly after, confirmed the driver’s description with dispatch, attempted a traffic stop, and obtained from dispatch that the plate was registered to Sherry Nolan.
Nolan (the only Black male in the courtroom) was later identified in court by Beth as the person who chased her; there was no pretrial photo lineup of the Joneses.
At trial Officer Boeckel testified that dispatch reported the Cadillac registered to Sherry Nolan and that he recognized Nolan from a booking photo; defense objected on hearsay grounds and to the suggestive in-court ID.
A jury convicted Nolan of reckless driving and failing to yield to an emergency vehicle; the Municipal Court’s rulings were affirmed by the District Court and Nolan appealed to the Montana Supreme Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Beth’s in-court identification was impermissibly suggestive and unreliable	State: in-court ID acceptable; witness had opportunity, attention, corroboration, and certainty	Nolan: one-to-one in-court ID (only Black man seated at defense table) was suggestive and risked misidentification	Court: ID was impermissibly suggestive but nonetheless reliable under totality of circumstances; admission upheld
Whether testimony that dispatch reported the car registered to Sherry Nolan was inadmissible hearsay	State: Boeckel’s report of dispatch was not offered for truth but to explain officer’s investigative steps (non-hearsay)	Nolan: statement was hearsay and needed business-records foundation (DMV custodian)	Court: testimony admissible as non-hearsay (offered to show the statement was made and led to officer’s actions)

Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972) (sets two-step due-process analysis for suggestive identifications and reliability factors)
State v. Lally, 2008 MT 452 (Mont. 2008) (discusses suppressing identifications that create substantial likelihood of misidentification)
State v. Baldwin, 2003 MT 346 (Mont. 2003) (treats identification challenges as motions to suppress and applies Biggers factors)
State v. Schoffner, 248 Mont. 260 (1990) (addresses in-court identifications and one-to-one show-up concerns)
State v. Campbell, 219 Mont. 194 (1985) (cautions law enforcement about relying solely on one-to-one show-ups)
United States v. Archibald, 734 F.2d 938 (2d Cir. 1984) (in-court ID of sole Black defendant held impermissibly suggestive though reliability may still be found)