State v. Plouffe
2014 MT 183
Mont.2014Background
- Plouffe charged in 2011 with misdemeanor trespass to property and possession of dangerous drugs; he entered Treatment Court and signed a Treatment Agreement granting confidential information sharing with the Treatment Team; the Team included Judge James, the County Attorney, law enforcement, and probation officers; multiple drug tests and sanctions were part of Treatment Court supervision; the State obtained and used drug-test results and information from Treatment Court interviews to pursue new charges in district court; Plouffe argued violations of his Fifth Amendment rights and confidentiality provisions and moved to suppress and dismiss; the district court denied the motions and Plouffe pled guilty with a reserved right to appeal the suppression issues; the Montana Supreme Court reversed and vacated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State’s use of confidential Treatment Court material violated the Fifth Amendment and Article II, §25 | Plouffe violated; confidential information cannot be used for new charges | State contends information is permissible to investigate new offenses | Yes, violation; information cannot be used against Plouffe |
| Whether disclosure of drug-testing results to non-Treatment Team members breached § 46-1-1111(4) | Confidential results disclosed outside Treatment Team | Disclosures arguably allowed as criminal justice information | Yes, breach; requires suppression/dismissal |
| Whether the interviews occurred in a classic penalty situation forcing compelled self-incrimination | Treatment Court context coerced honesty and admission of wrongdoing | Interviews were for treatment purposes with voluntary cooperation | Yes, classic penalty situation; statements inadmissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Fuller v. State, 276 Mont. 155, 915 P.2d 809 (1996) (confidentiality limits and compelled disclosure cannot be used in later prosecutions)
- U.S. v. Monia, 317 U.S. 424 (1943) (necessity to invoke Fifth Amendment to avoid compelled self-incrimination)
- Minn. v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (1984) (penalty situation when government thwarts voluntary invocation of rights)
- State v. Woods, 328 Mont. 54, 117 P.3d 152 (2005 MT 186) (classic penalty situation and treatment context influence voluntariness)
- State v. Hameline, 2008 MT 241, 344 Mont. 461, 188 P.3d 1052 (2008 MT 241) (invocation of rights and compelled statements in treatment contexts)