State v. Rodriguez
2011 MT 36
| Mont. | 2011Background
- Rodriguez was stopped in a Kurt's Polaris parking lot by Deputy Stineford after observing a late-night, headlights-off vehicle with expensive inventory nearby.
- Stineford smelled alcohol, noted glassy eyes, slow speech, and Rodriguez admitted drinking; Rodriguez refused roadside tests and was transported to the county facility.
- Stineford administered the HGN test at the facility; six of six indicators indicated impairment.
- The State charged Rodriguez with felony DUI based on seven prior DUI convictions.
- Rodriguez moved to suppress the stop for lack of particularized suspicion; the court denied, then held a second evidentiary hearing after video evidence emerged; trial followed.
- At trial, the court qualified Stineford as an HGN expert; the jury convicted Rodriguez of DUI; on appeal, Rodriguez challenges the stop and the HGN testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the totality of circumstances establish particularized suspicion for a stop? | Rodriguez argues lack of specific indicative facts. | Stineford relied on generic patrol experience, not particularized facts. | Yes; totality supported suspicion. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion in qualifying Stineford as an HGN expert? | Qualification rested on post-arrest training, not prior DUI experience. | Stineford's training and experience sufficed. | No; district court acted within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gilder v. State, 295 Mont. 483 (1999 MT 207) (elements of investigatory stop require particularized suspicion)
- Brown v. State, 349 Mont. 408 (2009 MT 64) (totality-of-the-circumstances approach for stops)
- Gopher v. State, 631 P.2d 293 (1981) (non-checklist approach to particularized suspicion)
- Hilgendorf v. State, 350 Mont. 412 (2009 MT 158) (limits on appellate review of stop-supported findings)
- Hulse v. DoJ, Motor Vehicle Div., 289 Mont. 1 (1998 MT 108) (expert qualification for HGN testimony separate from scientific basis)
- Harris v. State, 186 P.3d 1263 (2008 MT 213) (abuse of discretion standard for expert admissibility)
- Henson v. State, 356 Mont. 458 (2010 MT 136) (considerable latitude in ruling on admissibility of expert testimony)