State v. Ballinger, 366 P.3d 668

At ~10:13 p.m. Officer Morrison responded to a dispatch reporting an open front door at a reportedly vacant residence, 211 S. 33rd St.
Morrison observed Dean Ballinger and Julie Ramirez arrive in a vehicle and walk directly toward that house; Morrison intercepted them on the sidewalk and asked where they were going.
Ramirez gave inconsistent explanations (meeting people on the sidewalk; traveling between two homes that would not typically route them past the vacant house). Morrison found this suspicious.
Morrison asked for identification; Ballinger produced an ID showing a different address. A warrant check revealed an outstanding probation-violation warrant, and Ballinger was detained to validate the warrant.
After Ballinger was arrested and removed, Morrison searched his patrol car and found a bag of methamphetamine in the back seat; Ballinger was charged with felony possession.
Ballinger moved to suppress the drug evidence and to dismiss for lack of evidence; the District Court denied both motions. He was convicted and appealed arguing the stop lacked particularized suspicion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer had particularized suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop	State: Officer had articulable, objective facts (open door call, house condition, suspects walking directly to the house, inconsistent explanations) supporting suspicion of criminal activity	Ballinger: The encounter was an unlawful seizure lacking particularized suspicion; officer merely approached them on a public sidewalk	Court: Affirmed — totality of circumstances gave particularized suspicion justifying investigatory stop; evidence admissible
Whether a seizure occurred before ID request such that later facts cannot justify stop	State: Any seizure occurred only when officer requested ID; earlier interaction was consensual inquiry	Ballinger: He was seized when officer intercepted them with a flashlight and began questioning	Court: Implicitly found no seizure until ID request; even if seizure timing contested, officer had particularized suspicion based on pre-ID facts

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (establishing standard for investigatory stops)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (reasonable-person test for seizure)
State v. Dupree, 346 P.3d 1114 (Mont. 2015) (approach/questioning in public not necessarily a seizure)
State v. Brown, 203 P.3d 842 (Mont. 2009) (particularized-suspicion framework)
State v. Wagner, 303 P.3d 285 (Mont. 2013) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Wilkins, 205 P.3d 795 (Mont. 2009) (factors indicating a seizure)
State v. Strom, 333 P.3d 218 (Mont. 2014) (seizure analysis under U.S. and Montana Constitutions are same)
State v. Lovegren, 51 P.3d 471 (Mont. 2002) (Terry-stop explained)
State v. Graham, 175 P.3d 885 (Mont. 2007) (warrant requirement and exceptions)
State v. Bullock, 901 P.2d 61 (Mont. 1995) (Montana privacy protections)