State v. Dupree
2015 MT 103
| Mont. | 2015Background
- Border Patrol agent told Havre police that an Amtrak employee reported Dupree would depart the station with drugs; officers went to investigate and located Dupree at the station.
- Officers identified themselves, told Dupree about the tip, and asked for consent to search her luggage; Dupree agreed and moved to a back room for the search.
- Before signing the consent form Dupree asked what would happen if she refused; officers said they would hold her until a canine unit arrived; Dupree then signed and told them to search.
- Officers found three pills in her purse, later identified via records subpoena as oxycodone; Dupree was charged with criminal possession of dangerous drugs.
- Dupree moved to suppress arguing the tip and ensuing seizure lacked particularized suspicion and that her consent was involuntary or tainted by the officers’ statement about a drug dog.
- District Court denied suppression and later issued a written judgment whose payment deadline for fines conflicted with the court’s oral pronouncement; State conceded the written judgment must be conformed to the oral sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had particularized suspicion to detain Dupree when they said they would summon a drug dog | Tip and officers’ corroboration supplied particularized suspicion to detain and lawfully seek consent | Tip from boyfriend was unreliable; seizure/search lacked particularized suspicion under Pratt | Court: Initial contact was nonseizure; seizure occurred when officers said they'd hold her for a dog, but by then officers had gathered corroborating facts giving particularized suspicion, so detention was lawful |
| Whether Dupree’s consent to search was voluntary given officers’ statement about summoning a canine | Consent was voluntary and given after particularized suspicion existed; statement about dog was not misrepresentation | Statement about holding her pending a dog sniff was coercive/misleading and tainted consent | Court: Consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances; officers had particularized suspicion when they mentioned the dog, so no legal misrepresentation |
| Whether Pratt’s citizen-tip factors controlled analysis | Pratt factors applied only to citizen DUI tips; State relied on corroboration and general suspicion standards | Dupree relied on Pratt to argue boyfriend’s tip was insufficient | Court: Pratt is a narrow variant for DUI contexts; general particularized suspicion standard governs here |
| Whether written judgment altering payment deadline from oral pronouncement was proper | State conceded written judgment conflicted and should be amended | Dupree argued written judgment unlawfully increased financial burden | Court: Reverse and remand to conform written judgment to oral pronouncement |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pratt, 286 Mont. 156, 951 P.2d 37 (Mont. 1997) (sets factors for reliability of citizen tips in DUI-context investigatory stops)
- State v. Tackitt, 315 Mont. 59, 67 P.3d 295 (Mont. 2003) (canine sniff requires particularized suspicion)
- State v. Wagner, 315 Mont. 498, 68 P.3d 840 (Mont. 2003) (public encounter where compliance is voluntary is not a seizure)
- State v. Rushton, 264 Mont. 248, 870 P.2d 1355 (Mont. 1994) (consent is an exception to warrant requirement; involuntary consent invalidates a search)
- State v. Martinez, 314 Mont. 434, 67 P.3d 207 (Mont. 2003) (Pratt is limited in scope; totality-of-circumstances analysis for particularized suspicion)