State v. Crawford, 371 P.3d 381

Background

Crawford, a paroled felon with travel restrictions, was stopped for a traffic violation in Lake County; officers learned from parole that he was outside his travel district and had parole revocation authority.
Officers arrested Crawford for parole violation and, after a search incident to arrest, found two vials containing methamphetamine on his person.
State charged Crawford with criminal possession of dangerous drugs (reduced at second amendment to the lesser-included offense); the court did not arraign him on the Second Amended Information.
Crawford moved to suppress the methamphetamine, arguing the arrest/search was a "stalking horse" subterfuge for a criminal investigation rather than a parole enforcement action.
Crawford also raised claims of ineffective assistance (failure to file proposed findings after the suppression hearing), challenged discovery rulings, sought dismissal for lack of arraignment on the Second Amended Information, and complained about his counsel; he was convicted by a jury and sentenced.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Motion to suppress: Was the search incident to arrest lawful?	State: Officers lawfully arrested Crawford for parole violation and lawfully searched incident to arrest.	Crawford: Arrest was a pretext/stalking horse to conduct a criminal investigation; thus the search was unlawful.	Denied suppression; Court rejected "stalking horse" inquiry into officers' subjective motives and found arrest/search lawful under statute.
2. Ineffective assistance — failure to file proposed findings after suppression hearing	State: No prejudice from counsel not filing findings because suppression theory (stalking horse) fails as matter of law.	Crawford: Counsel’s omission prejudiced him and constituted ineffective assistance under Strickland.	Denied; no prejudice shown because the stalking-horse theory is rejected, so different filings wouldn't change outcome.
3. Discovery — denial of third request for emails, informant docs, original video	State: Produced all relevant material; requested items were irrelevant or did not exist.	Crawford: Emails and informant records could show subterfuge; original video may have been altered.	Denied; Court found no Brady/statutory discovery violation—requested materials were irrelevant to guilt and no evidence original video existed or was altered.
4. Posttrial dismissal for failure to arraign on Second Amended Information	State: Amendments merely dropped a charge and reduced another to a lesser-included offense; no substantive amendment requiring arraignment.	Crawford: Dismissal of forfeiture charge and reduction required arraignment; failure was reversible error.	Denied; amendments were not substantive under §46-11-205 and precedent, so arraignment was not required.
5. Adequacy of court inquiry into complaints about appointed counsel	State: Crawford never requested new counsel; thus no further inquiry/hearing required.	Crawford: Court should have conducted an adequate initial inquiry into his complaints and potential prejudice.	Denied; because Crawford did not request substitute counsel or file a motion, the court’s inquiry was sufficient.

Key Cases Cited

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (officer motive irrelevant to Fourth Amendment traffic stops)
United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (search of probationer upheld under totality of circumstances; no inquiry into officer purpose required)
State v. Fritz, 333 Mont. 215 (Mont.) (discussed allegations of probation/parole subterfuge; court did not adopt stalking-horse theory)
State v. Galpin, 318 Mont. 318 (Mont.) (warrantless searches are per se unreasonable but searches incident to lawful arrest are allowed)
State v. Farabee, 302 Mont. 29 (Mont.) (rejecting inquiry into officers’ subjective motivations under Montana Constitution)
United States v. Harper, 928 F.2d 894 (9th Cir.) (older Ninth Circuit stalking-horse precedent later abrogated)