City of Missoula v. J. Adams, 2021 MT 285N

Around 3:00 a.m., Officer Vreeland observed a white Cadillac parked in a commercial U‑Haul area; through the front window he saw a man in the back seat who appeared to slide down as the patrol car passed.
A woman quickly entered the front passenger seat; Vreeland recognized her from prior contacts and, given the late hour and location, turned back, activated lights, and approached to investigate.
When Vreeland approached the vehicle the man was gone; the woman identified him as her boyfriend (later identified as John Adams) but said she did not know where he went.
Vreeland called for backup, searched the area, and found Adams hiding under a U‑Haul truck with two full gas cans and a siphon hose; gasoline was pouring onto the ground and Adams smelled of gasoline.
Adams was arrested and charged with theft and obstructing a peace officer; he moved to suppress the evidence as the product of an unlawful stop lacking particularized suspicion.
Municipal Court denied suppression; Adams reserved appeal, pled no contest to theft; the District Court (as intermediate appellate court) affirmed; the Montana Supreme Court (mem. op.) affirmed the denial of suppression.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer had particularized suspicion to stop/approach the Cadillac	Totality (late hour, commercial location, male slinking down, quick entry by a known passenger, officer’s knowledge U‑Hauls are siphoning targets) justified investigatory approach	Observations were generalized/innocent (could be conduct of any law‑abiding person); inferences not particularized per Reeves	Court held the totality supplied reasonable/specific suspicion to investigate and validated the search that led to Adams’ discovery
Whether Adams was seized prior to being found under the U‑Haul	Officer did not seize Adams while he was in the vehicle; detention occurred when Adams was found under the truck	Any detention of the vehicle or passenger should extend to Adams and taint later evidence	Court agreed Adams was not detained until discovered under the U‑Haul; evidence was not fruit of an unlawful seizure
Whether evidence (gas cans, siphon, smell of gasoline) should be suppressed as fruit of an illegal stop	Evidence was discovered after lawful investigation supported by particularized suspicion	Evidence should be suppressed because initial stop/arrest lacked particularized suspicion	Court held evidence admissible—officer’s investigation was lawful and led properly to probable cause for arrest

Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56 (seizures of property implicate Fourth Amendment even without a search)
Brown v. State, 349 Mont. 408 (defining elements of particularized suspicion for investigatory stops)
State v. Pratt, 286 Mont. 156 (state bears burden to prove law enforcement had particularized suspicion)
State v. Elison, 302 Mont. 228 (reasonable‑suspicion inquiry uses totality of circumstances: quantity and quality of information)
State v. Reeves, 396 Mont. 230 (inferences from conduct common to law‑abiding people cannot alone create particularized suspicion)
State v. Ochadleus, 326 Mont. 441 (degree of interference with possessory interest determines whether a seizure occurred)