City of Billings v. J. Carter, 2017 MT 263N

At ~2:20 a.m. on January 6, 2016, Officer Garrett Peterson observed Joshua Carter stopped at a green light at Grand Ave and 5th St in Billings.
Carter remained stopped for ~43 seconds and was stopped within the crosswalk.
Officer Peterson passed Carter, made a U-turn, returned behind him, and as Carter began to move through the intersection the officer activated his lights and stopped him.
Carter was arrested and charged with his third DUI. He moved to suppress, arguing the traffic stop lacked particularized suspicion.
Billings Municipal Court denied suppression; the district court affirmed on appeal. The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed in a memorandum opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Officer Peterson had particularized suspicion to stop Carter under § 46-5-401(1), MCA	Officer (City) argued Carter’s prolonged stop (43 sec) and stopping in the crosswalk, shortly after bars closed, were objective facts supporting suspicion of impeding traffic and possible DUI	Carter argued the officer lacked particularized, articulable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop	Court held the officer had particularized suspicion based on objective facts (long stop at green, stopped in crosswalk, late hour), so stop was lawful

State v. Larson, 358 Mont. 156, 243 P.3d 1130 (2010) (defines particularized suspicion elements using objective data and articulable facts)
Brown v. State, 349 Mont. 408, 203 P.3d 842 (2009) (supports standard that particularized suspicion may be based on articulable facts)
City of Missoula v. Sharp, 381 Mont. 225, 358 P.3d 204 (2015) (review standard: factual findings of particularized suspicion reviewed for clear error)
Stanley v. Lemire, 334 Mont. 489, 148 P.3d 643 (2006) (procedural guidance treating district court as intermediate appellate body on municipal appeals)
City of Billings v. Staebler, 362 Mont. 231, 262 P.3d 1101 (2011) (courts may affirm when correct result reached even if rationale differs)