State v. Gill, 2012 MT 36

Gill pled guilty to DUI and underage possession after a suppression motion was denied in Justice Court.
Gill's suppression motion was denied by the Justice Court and then again by the District Court.
Brady reported a highly intoxicated driver on I-90, describing a green 1990s Chevy pickup with pallets and two occupants.
Trooper Salois stopped Gill after receiving Brady’s tip and observing open alcohol containers and odor of alcohol.
Gill challenges the stop as based on insufficient particularized suspicion; the State argues Brady’s report was reliable and corroborated by officer observations.
The Montana Supreme Court reviews the district court’s denial of the suppression motion for clear error and legal correctness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in denying the suppression motion	Gill contends Brady’s 911 report was unreliable, breaking the chain for stop.	State argues Brady’s report had reliability indicia and corroboration by Trooper Salois.	District court did not err; stop supported by particularized suspicion.

City of Missoula v. Moore, 360 Mont. 22 (2011 MT 61) (test for particularized suspicion and reliability)
State v. Cameron, 264 P.3d 1136 (2011 MT 276) (constitutional stop framework; totality of circumstances)
State v. Flynn, 251 P.3d 143 (2011 MT 48) (informant reliability and stop standards)
State v. Brown, 203 P.3d 842 (2009 MT 64) (three Pratt factors for informant reliability)
State v. Clawson, 351 Mont. 354 (2009 MT 228) (specifics of particularized suspicion standard)
State v. Rutherford, 350 Mont. 403 (2009 MT 154) (totality of the circumstances and reliability)
Pratt v. State, 951 P.2d 37 (1997) (three-factor test for informant reliability)