State v. Grmoljez, 438 P.3d 802

Background

Trooper Gaston, with ~19 years patrolling Highway 135, observed a vehicle stopped in a gravel turnout partially on grass; turnout had no hiking access and was not a scenic stop.
Vehicle had two occupants; the female driver (Grmoljez) looked at the trooper "without any emotions;" no obvious mechanical problems were visible.
Trooper turned around, approached, parked behind the vehicle with rear deck lights on, and radioed dispatch he was approaching an "occupied vehicle that's possibly disabled."
On contact Trooper Gaston asked "Everything OK?" Grmoljez said she had "too many last night" and did not want to drive; Trooper detected odor of alcohol.
Trooper conducted field sobriety tests and obtained a breath sample showing BAC 0.154; Grmoljez was charged with DUI per se.
Grmoljez moved to suppress, arguing the initial contact was not justified under the community caretaker doctrine; District Court denied suppression and this appeal followed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the stop was justified under the community caretaker doctrine	A legally parked car on a safe turnout in daylight with no visible distress does not supply objective facts to justify a welfare stop	Trooper relied on specific, articulable facts from experience (location, vehicle position, turnout features) indicating possible mechanical trouble or disabled vehicle	Court held the stop met Lovegren's first prong — objective, specific, articulable facts justified welfare check
Whether the contact was pretext for investigation	Grmoljez argued lack of emergency signals and neutral demeanor negated need for a welfare check	Trooper's conduct (only rear lights, asking "Everything OK?", radioing dispatch) and lack of criminal indicators showed welfare intent	Court found interaction was an actual welfare check, not a pretextual stop
Whether seizure occurred before justification for criminal investigation existed	Grmoljez contended any escalation was unlawful because initial stop lacked justification	State argued investigation lawfully shifted to DUI after statements and odor of alcohol provided particularized suspicion	Court held contact began as welfare check and validly shifted to DUI investigation once Trooper detected alcohol and obtained incriminating statements
Whether District Court erred denying suppression	Grmoljez asserted suppression required because initial stop was unlawful	State maintained suppression inappropriate because community caretaker doctrine applied and subsequent investigation was supported by new facts	Court affirmed denial of motion to suppress

Key Cases Cited

City of Missoula v. Kroschel, 391 Mont. 457 (Mont. 2018) (warrantless seizures presumptively unreasonable)
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (Fourth Amendment search/seizure principles)
State v. Lovegren, 310 Mont. 358 (Mont. 2002) (adopts three-part community caretaker test)
State v. Spaulding, 361 Mont. 445 (Mont. 2011) (absence of classic distress signals does not negate objective facts supporting welfare stop)
State v. Marcial, 371 Mont. 348 (Mont. 2013) (community caretaker role and limits)
State v. Nelson, 319 Mont. 250 (Mont. 2004) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
State v. Clayton, 309 Mont. 215 (Mont. 2002) (clearly erroneous standard for factual findings)
State v. Seaman, 329 Mont. 429 (Mont. 2005) (recognizes affirmative duty of officers to perform community caretaker functions)