State v. Reeves
2019 MT 151
| Mont. | 2019Background
- On Jan. 14, 2017, Deputy Terrill observed Billy Clayton Reeves III leave a brewery parking lot and approach a four-way intersection at Trumpeter Way where the deputy was already present.
- Deputy Terrill arrived first, did not assert his right-of-way or signal Reeves to proceed; Reeves waited 8–14 seconds, then signaled and made a lawful left turn across an icy street.
- Deputy Terrill stopped Reeves, initially citing failure to signal 100 feet before an intersection; the deputy later conceded no traffic violation occurred and the parking lot precluded a 100-foot approach.
- Upon contact, the deputy detected a strong odor of alcohol; Reeves refused field sobriety and breath tests, a blood draw later showed BAC over twice the legal limit.
- Reeves moved to dismiss for lack of particularized suspicion; Justice Court granted the motion, State appealed, District Court denied the motion and convicted Reeves of aggravated DUI—Reeves appealed.
- Montana Supreme Court reversed: it held Deputy Terrill lacked objective, particularized suspicion to stop Reeves, vacated the conviction, and ordered dismissal with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Reeves) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer had particularized suspicion to stop Reeves for DUI | Totality (leaving a brewery, "deer-in-headlights" look, delay 8–14s, late signal) constituted objective data supporting suspicion | Conduct was lawful and consistent with a prudent driver; inferences were speculative and not particularized | No; stop was not supported by particularized suspicion and was unlawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. State, 272 Mont. 46, 899 P.2d 540 (1995) (a possible traffic violation plus no other objective data cannot establish particularized suspicion for DUI)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (stops require reasonable, articulable suspicion; hunches insufficient)
- Trombley v. State, 327 Mont. 507, 116 P.3d 771 (2005) (legal maneuver plus subsequent unsafe driving may supply objective data supporting suspicion)
- City of Missoula v. Cook, 307 Mont. 39, 36 P.3d 414 (2001) (excessive delay at a flashing light shortly after bars close can support particularized suspicion)
- Elison v. State, 302 Mont. 228, 14 P.3d 456 (2000) (overt evasive driving maneuvers, combined with other indicia, can justify a stop)
- Gopher, 193 Mont. 189, 631 P.2d 293 (1981) (particularized suspicion requires objective data and specific inference tying wrongdoing to the person stopped)