State v. Marcial
2013 MT 242
| Mont. | 2013Background
- Marcial pled guilty to DUI after Bozeman Municipal Court denied his suppression motion.
- Officer Munter observed abrupt, unusual driving near a fire hydrant at 1:15 a.m., leading to a welfare check and DUI investigation.
- Initial contact was framed as a welfare check, not a traffic stop, though indicators suggested possible impairment.
- Municipal Court denied suppression, invoking the community caretaker doctrine as the basis for the stop.
- District Court affirmed suppression denial, adopting the caretaker rationale but acknowledged the factual basis supported a stop.
- Marcial appealed, contending the caretaker doctrine was misapplied and the stop lacked particularized suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court erred in affirming the Municipal Court’s denial based on the community caretaker doctrine | Marcial | State | No error; caretaker rationale affirmed, but the Court joins on alternate grounds of particularized suspicion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lovegren, 2002 MT 153 (Mont. 2002) (established the community caretaker test governing welfare checks and seizures)
- State v. Seaman, 2005 MT 307 (Mont. 2005) (recognizes non-seizure welfare-check encounters in caretaker context)
- State v. Graham, 2007 MT 358 (Mont. 2007) (caretaker doctrine and seizures limited by proper application)
- Spaulding, 2011 MT 204 (Mont. 2011) (limits caretaker use as pretext for criminal investigation; analyzes welfare checks)
- State v. Wagner, 2013 MT 159 (Mont. 2013) (defines particularized suspicion for investigative stops under state law)
- State v. Ellison, 2012 MT 50 (Mont. 2012) (review standard: affirm if right result, even for the wrong reason)
- Brown v. State, 2009 MT 64 (Mont. 2009) (refines 'particularized suspicion' standard for stops)