State v. Demontiney, 324 P.3d 344

On Jan. 5, 2010, Hill County deputies detained Nina Demontiney at Wal‑Mart for suspected shoplifting; deputies discovered an outstanding city warrant and arrested her.
Deputies handcuffed both women, searched them for weapons, and transported them to the Hill County Detention Center; Demontiney’s purse was taken (over her objection) in a separate patrol car.
At booking Officer Eckhardt performed an inventory search of the purse and found a plastic sandwich container holding 39 bags of a white rock‑like substance (tested positive for cocaine), large amounts of cash, razor blades, a straw, and pills; Demontiney was charged with possession with intent to distribute and paraphernalia.
Demontiney moved to suppress/dismiss, arguing the search violated Montana Constitution Article II §§ 10 and 11 and that closed containers in her purse required less‑intrusive handling; the District Court denied the motion.
She pleaded guilty with reservation of the suppression issue and appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the search was a valid routine inventory search under State v. Pastos.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless opening of closed containers in an arrestee’s purse at the station violated Article II §§ 10 and 11	Demontiney: Pastos should be overruled; Section 10 requires a factual showing and least‑intrusive means for closed containers; this search was investigatory and not justified by case‑specific facts	State: Inventory searches are a recognized exception per Pastos; safety and property‑accounting are compelling interests and the station followed routine inventory procedures	Court: Reaffirmed Pastos; inventory search of personal property (including closed containers) at booking is closely tailored to compelling interests and was valid here

State v. Pastos, 269 Mont. 43, 887 P.2d 199 (Mont. 1994) (upheld routine stationhouse inventory searches, including closed containers)
State v. Sierra, 214 Mont. 472, 692 P.2d 1273 (Mont. 1984) (advocated a least‑intrusive‑means approach for warrantless searches)
Reeves v. State, 599 P.2d 727 (Alaska 1979) (rejected categorical inventory‑search exception; emphasized case‑by‑case showing)
Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (1983) (approved stationhouse inventory procedures to protect property and deter false claims/theft)
State v. Graham, 271 Mont. 510, 898 P.2d 1206 (Mont. 1995) (distinguished search incident to arrest from inventory search; facts matter to which exception applies)
U.S. v. Bowhay, 992 F.2d 229 (9th Cir. 1993) (inventory policy requiring search of possessions can negate invalidation due to investigatory motive)