State v. Bryan Lemay
363 Mont. 172
| Mont. | 2011Background
- LeMay moved to Fairview, Montana in 2009 and faced numerous traffic and criminal charges arising from incidents in July–August 2009.
- He claimed harassment and racial profiling by police, alleging they mistook him for a white supremacist biker and targeted him.
- Three district court causes—DC 09-31, DC 09-39, DC 09-48—consolidated for appeal; plea negotiations led to nolo contendere pleas with a later motion to withdraw.
- LeMay challenged: (1) outrageous government conduct, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, (3) withdrawal of pleas, (4) suppression for lack of particularized suspicion, (5) state criminal jurisdiction.
- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the combined judgment and rejected each challenge after reviewing the record and applicable law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Outrageous government conduct denied? | LeMay claims harassment and profiling justify dismissal. | No extreme government participation; not manufactured crimes. | No outrageous conduct; denial affirmed. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel? | Counsel failed to investigate profiling and broadened claims. | Counsel acted reasonably under Strickland; no prejudice shown. | No deficient performance or prejudice; claims fail. |
| Withdraw nolo contendere pleas? | Plea involuntary due to brain injury; inadequate representation. | Plea explained; defendant understood consequences. | Plea voluntarily entered; no good cause to withdraw. |
| Suppression for lack of particularized suspicion? | No illegal U-turn; stop lacked particularized suspicion. | Crossing double yellow lines and signs supported suspicion. | Stop based on particularized suspicion; suppression denied. |
| State criminal jurisdiction over Indian defendant? | Lemay is Indian; Richland County is Indian Country; jurisdiction lies federal. | Crimes occurred in Montana towns outside Indian Country. | Crimes not in Indian Country; jurisdiction proper; appeal denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1973) (outrageous government conduct not broadly applicable unless extreme)
- State v. Ditton, 333 Mont. 483 (Mont. 2006) (limits outrageous conduct to extreme cases)
- State v. Williams-Rusch, 279 Mont. 437 (Mont. 1996) (limits on outrageous-conduct defense (overruled in part))
- City of Billings v. Bruce, 290 Mont. 148 (Mont. 1998) (context for outrageous conduct standard)
- United States v. Ramirez, 710 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1983) (extreme government conduct required to bar prosecution)
- In re Estate of Big Spring, 2011 MT 109 (Mont. 2011) (jurisdictional and subject-matter review standard)