430 P.3d 77
Mont.2018Background
- Trooper Smith stopped a 2013 Chrysler with expired North Dakota registration after occupants glanced at his patrol car and looked away; driver Scott Paramore and passenger Johnathan Wilson were detained on June 21, 2016.
- During the ~20-minute stop Smith observed nervous behavior (trembling, heavy breathing, avoiding eye contact), a messy, "lived-in" interior, a suitcase and rental sticker, lack of evidence of insurance, and learned Paramore had prior drug charges.
- Smith cited Paramore for expired registration and no proof of insurance (~20 minutes in) but asked them to wait while he summoned a Border Patrol K-9; the stop was extended about 35 minutes pending the canine sniff.
- The K-9 alerted; officers obtained a warrant and found ~262.2 grams of marijuana and paraphernalia; Paramore and Wilson were later arrested and Wilson pleaded no contest to possession with intent to distribute.
- Wilson moved to suppress the evidence as the traffic stop was unlawfully prolonged without particularized suspicion to expand it into a drug investigation; the District Court denied the motion. The Montana Supreme Court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Wilson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the traffic stop could be extended into a dog-sniff drug investigation | Extension lacked particularized suspicion; indicators were innocent and amounted to a generalized hunch | Trooper Smith had particularized suspicion from combined indicators (nervousness, vehicle condition, travel plans, prior drug history, corridor) | Reversed: no particularized suspicion; extension violated § 46-5-403, MCA and Montana constitutional protections |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Estes, 388 Mont. 491, 403 P.3d 1249 (2017) (affirmed expansion of a traffic stop into a drug investigation where multiple objective indicators supported particularized suspicion)
- State v. Meza, 333 Mont. 305, 143 P.3d 422 (2006) (stop may be prolonged and scope broadened if investigation stays within limits of facts and suspicions)
- State v. Tackitt, 315 Mont. 59, 67 P.3d 295 (2003) (canine sniff is a search under Montana Constitution but requires only particularized suspicion)
- State v. Elison, 302 Mont. 228, 14 P.3d 456 (2000) (particularized suspicion defined for investigatory stops)
- State v. Hoover, 388 Mont. 533, 402 P.3d 1224 (2017) (totality-of-circumstances test and standards for particularized suspicion)