State v. Peters
264 P.3d 1124
Mont.2011Background
- Consolidated appeals by Peters, Banks, Buls, Christofferson, Fitzgerald, and Super seeking Intoxilyzer 8000 source code and related information to challenge DUI evidence.
- District Court limited each defendant’s discovery and entered a Certificate to compel testimony and production from CMI, Inc. in Kentucky.
- Kentucky court ordered protective measures; deemed source code a trade secret and allowed electronic disclosure under a protective order with non-disclosure agreements.
- Montana District Court found the protective agreements reasonable and held access to source code feasible under conditions; declined to conduct a due process/confrontation hearing or a repeat reliability hearing.
- Appellants subpoenaed Montana DOJ Forensic Sciences Division for broad materials; district court quashed most requests as oppressive and limited production to a narrow set of items.
- Peters’ case: November 17, 2008 incident led to investigatory stop at his home, Trailley described, admission of drinking, arrest after the breath test showed 0.173, and subsequent suppression motion denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court erred in denying discovery of source code | Peters asserts trade-secret status and due process concerns. | State contends access is available through Agreements and Kentucky findings. | No abuse; access via Agreements reasonable. |
| Whether the District Court erred by quashing parts of the subpoena to DOJ Forensic Sciences Division | Requests are relevant and public records-like information. | Requests are oppressive/voluminous; district court properly narrowed scope. | No abuse; narrowing was reasonable and properly limited. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 349 Mont. 408 (2009 MT 64) (totality of evidence for particularized suspicion; informant tips permitted)
- Pratt, 286 Mont. 156 (1997) (reliability of informants and corroboration by officer observations)
- Ellinger, 223 Mont. 349 (1986) (informant reliability and non-custodial stop analysis)
- Lacey, 2009 MT 62 (2009 MT 62) (defining custody for Miranda purposes)
- Carr v. Bett, 291 Mont. 326 (1998 MT 266) (full faith and credit for sister-state judgments)
- Montana Power Co. v. Montana Pub. Serv. Comm., 305 Mont. 260 (2001 MT 102) (courts will not act on hypothetical regulatory issues)
- Yellowstone County v. Billings Gazette, 333 Mont. 390 (2006 MT 218) (right to obtain public records and limitations; process to obtain documents)
- Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106 (1963) (full faith and credit principle for out-of-state judgments)