State v. Marino, 380 P.3d 763

At ~1:30 a.m. Marino was stopped for driving without headlights; deputy observed no rear license plate and very dark window tint.
Marino produced a California ID (no driver’s license) and said the plates were in the trunk because his girlfriend told him to remove them to avoid attention.
While retrieving the plates, deputy saw a sheath under Marino’s shirt and conducted a pat-down; he found a concealed knife, an unlicensed pistol, and $2,914 cash.
Marino was arrested for carrying an unlicensed, concealed weapon; the deputy then deployed a drug-detection canine, which alerted at the rear of the vehicle.
The vehicle was towed, sealed, and searched pursuant to a warrant obtained after the canine alert; methamphetamine was found and Marino was charged with possession with intent to distribute.
Marino moved to suppress, arguing the canine sniff required exigent circumstances; the district court denied suppression, and Marino reserved appeal on that ruling when pleading guilty.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a warrantless canine sniff of the vehicle was lawful	State: canine sniff exception requires only particularized suspicion and publicly exposed odors	Marino: canine sniff is a warrantless search and, per Hardaway, exigent circumstances were required and none existed after arrest	The Court held canine sniff was lawful under the drug-canine exception because officers had particularized suspicion and the vehicle’s odors were exposed to the public

State v. Tackitt, 315 Mont. 59, 67 P.3d 295 (Mont. 2003) (canine search of protected area is a search but may proceed on particularized suspicion)
State v. Hardaway, 307 Mont. 139, 36 P.3d 900 (Mont. 2001) (search-incident-to-arrest exigency discussion; Court rejects importing exigency into all warrant exceptions)
State v. Elison, 302 Mont. 228, 14 P.3d 456 (Mont. 2000) (privacy interest in concealed vehicle areas)
State v. Hart, 320 Mont. 154, 85 P.3d 1275 (Mont. 2004) (particularized suspicion for canine search where officers observed furtive movements during stop)
State v. Meza, 333 Mont. 305, 143 P.3d 422 (Mont. 2006) (totality-of-circumstances supports particularized suspicion: furtive behavior, known narcotics area, defendant’s history)
State v. Stoumbaugh, 337 Mont. 147, 157 P.3d 1137 (Mont. 2007) (particularized suspicion for canine search supported by verified drug history and suspicious vehicle conduct)
State v. Siegal, 281 Mont. 250, 934 P.2d 176 (Mont. 1997) (distinguishing thermal scans from canine sniffs)