State v. A. Pippen, 2017 MT 59N

On April 1, 2014, Trooper Tammy Perkins observed Allen Dale Pippen fail to signal while turning, followed him, and observed the vehicle crowd the centerline; she initiated a traffic stop.
Upon approaching, the trooper detected the smell of alcohol and marijuana and observed Pippen with a red face and bloodshot eyes; occupants were not wearing seatbelts.
Trooper verified Pippen’s license, registration, and the passenger’s valid medical marijuana card; issued a warning for the signal violation and seatbelt citations.
Trooper asked Pippen to exit the vehicle, continued to smell alcohol and marijuana, administered field sobriety tests and a portable breath test, and arrested Pippen after he performed poorly and admitted to drinking.
State charged Pippen with felony DUI (later amended to DUI of delta-9-THC based on blood results) and seatbelt violation; Pippen moved to suppress evidence arguing lack of particularized suspicion for the stop and lack of probable cause for arrest.
District Court denied the suppression motion; Pippen pleaded guilty reserving the right to appeal the suppression denial. Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trooper had particularized suspicion to stop the vehicle	Stop lawful because trooper observed a statutory turn-signal violation	Stop was pretextual; insufficient suspicion to justify stop	Trooper had particularized suspicion based on observed signal violation; stop lawful
Whether officer had particularized suspicion to investigate DUI during the stop	Officer developed suspicion after detecting odor of marijuana and signs of intoxication	Smell/observations insufficient to justify DUI investigation	Observations (odor, red/bloodshot eyes) provided particularized suspicion to investigate DUI
Whether probable cause existed to arrest for DUI	Probable cause arose after failed field sobriety tests, Pippen’s admission, and portable breath test	Arrest lacked probable cause because stop/investigation was improper	Particularized suspicion ripened into probable cause based on tests, admission, and observations; arrest lawful
Whether suppression should be granted based on constitutional standards	Evidence should be suppressed due to unlawful stop/arrest	Evidence admissible because stop, investigation, and arrest were lawful	Denial of suppression affirmed; evidence admissible

State v. Pratt, 286 Mont. 156, 951 P.2d 37 (discussing standard of review for suppression findings)
State v. Murray, 359 Mont. 123, 247 P.3d 721 (officer observation of traffic offense satisfies particularized suspicion)
Kummerfeldt v. State, 378 Mont. 522, 347 P.3d 1233 (statutory violation alone can establish particularized suspicion for a stop)
Hulse v. State, 289 Mont. 1, 961 P.2d 75 (signs of intoxication during a stop can justify DUI investigation)
State v. Williamson, 290 Mont. 321, 965 P.2d 231 (particularized suspicion during a stop may ripen into probable cause to arrest)
State v. Updegraff, 363 Mont. 123, 267 P.3d 28 (same principle: facts after stop can create probable cause)