State v. Duong, 2015 MT 70

On Oct. 16, 2012, Trooper Troy Muri observed Michael Duong driving on I-94 at night, following for nearly two miles after accelerating to catch up.
Muri observed Duong cross the fog line multiple times, drive onto the rumble strip twice, and weave within his lane; Muri suspected impairment, sleepiness, medical issue, or distraction.
Muri stopped Duong and issued a warning; during the encounter Duong consented to a search of a cardboard box, which contained 14 pounds of marijuana.
Duong was charged with possession with intent to distribute, moved to suppress the evidence, and reserved the right to appeal.
After an evidentiary hearing and review of patrol video, the district court denied the suppression motion; Duong pled no contest, received a six-year deferred sentence, and was ordered to pay various fees including $325 for an interpreter and a 10% administration fee.
The Supreme Court affirmed the stop, reversed the assessment of interpreter costs and the 10% administration fee, and remanded to strike those portions of the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer had particularized suspicion to stop Duong	State: Muri observed multiple fog-line crossings, rumble-strip contacts, and weaving sufficient for an investigatory stop	Duong: movements were innocent or responses to the patrol car’s approach; insufficient objective data for stop	Stop was supported — court affirmed denial of suppression
Whether Duong must pay interpreter costs	State: district court properly imposed fees	Duong: interpreter costs are the responsibility of the State Public Defender, not the defendant	Court held interpreter costs were improperly imposed and must be struck
Whether a 10% administration fee could be imposed	State: fee listed in written judgment	Duong: fee was not pronounced orally and no statutory authority exists to impose such a fee	Court held fee unlawful and not orally pronounced; written judgment reformed to remove it

State v. Flynn, 359 Mont. 376, 251 P.3d 143 (2011) (particularized-suspicion inquiry looks to facts available to officer; after-the-fact explanations rejected)
State v. Larson, 358 Mont. 156, 243 P.3d 1130 (2010) (totality-of-circumstances test for investigatory stops)
Weer v. State, 358 Mont. 130, 244 P.3d 311 (2010) (officer must point to specific, articulable facts justifying intrusion)
State v. Lafferty, 291 Mont. 157, 967 P.2d 363 (1998) (disapproved reliance on defendant’s after-the-fact explanation for traffic conduct)
State v. Krum, 339 Mont. 154, 168 P.3d 658 (2007) (sentencing authority constrained by statute; remedy for illegal sentence)
State v. Kroll, 322 Mont. 294, 95 P.3d 717 (2004) (oral pronouncement of sentence controls over conflicting written judgment)
Alkire v. Mun. Court, City of Missoula, 344 Mont. 260, 186 P.3d 1288 (2008) (Office of State Public Defender responsible for interpreter fees)
State v. Webb, 325 Mont. 317, 106 P.3d 521 (2005) (criminal sentence review is for legality and statutory compliance)