State v. Pearson
2011 MT 55
Mont.2011Background
- Pearson was stopped for a broken tail light during a routine traffic stop in Yellowstone County, Montana.
- Officer Kristjanson observed Pearson’s nervous movements and a “meth watch” sticker, raising suspicion of drug involvement.
- Pearson clutched a large wad of cash, and the stop revealed expired registration and no insurance.
- Kristjanson learned Pearson was on probation and had a drug history; Pearson was frisked and his fanny pack searched for weapons.
- Pearson gave written consent to search his car; officers found drug paraphernalia in the car and later a methamphetamine bindle during a second fanny pack search.
- Officer Pinnick authorized a probation violation hold after contact, and Pearson was transported to the detention facility; the district court held the second fanny pack search unlawful but allowed the methamphetamine to be admitted under inevitable discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop’s scope exceeded legality | Pearson argues the second search exceeded the stop’s scope | State contends additional facts after the stop justified the extended inquiry | Yes, scope extended but justified by additional suspicious data |
| Whether inevitable discovery validly saved the second search evidence | Pearson argues inevitable discovery fails because the second search was unlawful | State argues evidence would inevitably be discovered via lawful means | No; the evidence was not inevitably discovered under the record; majority opinion considers it inadmissible under inevitable discovery, dissent argues otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hurlbert, 211 P.3d 869 (Mont. 2009) (plenary review; lawful scope of stop and subsequent searches)
- State v. Dickinson, 343 Mont. 301, 184 P.3d 305 (Mont. 2008) (inevitable discovery doctrine applies to in-progress investigations)
- State v. Hilgendorf, 208 P.3d 401 (Mont. 2009) (inevitable discovery and searches without warrant; inventory/search rules)
- State v. Meza, 333 Mont. 305, 143 P.3d 422 (Mont. 2006) (probation searches permissible with officer authorization)