State v. ClarkState v. Clark
delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 John Dixon Clark (Clark) appeals from an order of the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, denying his motion to dismiss and suppress evidence. Clark argues that the game wardens who arrested him lacked particularized suspicion to stop his vehicle after he drove by a game checking station. We affirm.
¶2 We review the following issue on appeal:
¶3 Did the game wardens have pаrticularized suspicion to stop Clark’s truck for a possible fish and game violation ?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶4 The Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) set up a game checking station on Highway 200 in Lеwis and Clark County on October 14, 2007.
¶5 Vinnedge had parked his truck in a conspicuous location, perpendicular to the highway, approximately one mile in advance of the checking station. The truck sported the standard red and blue lights and an FWP decal on the side. Vinnedge sat above the truck on a cut bank and observed traffic. He used a spotting scope to look for hunting or fishing equipment or game in the passing vehicles.
¶6 A group of four vehicles, including Clark’s pickup truck, drove past Vinnedge at
¶7 Vinnedge attempted to intercept Clark. Clark had moved on by the time that Vinnedge pulled his truck onto the highway. Vinnedge radioed ahead to Warden Bill Koppen, who was parked 500 yards past the checking station. Vinnedge informed Koрpen that Clark had “stopped short.” Vinnedge directed Koppen to stop Clark if he failed to stop at the checking station. Vinnedge returned to the spot where Clark had stopped and searched the ditch for evidence that Clark might have been attempting to conceal a hunting violation. Vinnedge found nothing.
¶8 Clаrk passed the checking station without stopping. Koppen radioed Vinnedge that he would stop Clark. Koppen activated his lights and began following Clark’s truck. Clark failed to pull over. Koppen finally activated his siren after approximately eight minutes. It took several more minutes before Clark finally pulled off the road. Koppen testified that Clark’s truck repeatedly had crossed the center line and the white fog line of the highway before Clark had pulled over. Kopрen testified that three vehicles were in front of Clark when he had activated his lights and that it looked like Clark had wanted to pass the vehicles to put some distanсe between himself and Koppen. ¶9 Koppen did not observe hunting equipment or game when he approached Clark’s vehicle. He did observe wet clothing, beer cans, and a cooler in the bed of Clark’s truck. Koppen detected a strong smell of cologne when Clark rolled his window down. Clark was soaking wet and еxplained to Koppen that he had been ‘in the creek.” Koppen testified that Clark looked terrible and appeared intoxicated. Kopрen radioed Warden Vinnedge to contact the Montana Highway Patrol, because he felt Clark was intoxicated. Highway Patrolman Scott Zarske arrived at thе scene approximately one hour later. The State eventually charged Clark with driving under the influence of alcohol.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶10 We review a district court’s grant or dеnial of a motion to suppress evidence to determine whether the court’s findings of fact were clearly erroneous and whether its conclusions of law were correct.
State v. Meza,
DISCUSSION
¶11 Did the game warden havе particularized suspicion to stop Clark’s truck for a possible fish and game violation ?
¶12 Clark argues that the wardens lacked particularized suspicion to conduct an investigative stop. The existence of particularized suspicion presents a question of fact that the district court determines by considering the tоtality of the circumstances confronting the officer at the time of the stop.
State v. Hall,
¶13 Clark argues that Koppen based the stop of his vehicle and resulting arrest on
¶14 Vinnedge’s ‘hunch” stemmed from Clark’s stopping short of the checking station. Warden Vinnedge testified that he thought Clark might be trying to conceal, hide, or changе something before reaching the checking station. Vinnedge testified that a vehicle has “stopped short” at least once at every checking station where he has worked. He explained that when a vehicle stops short of a game checking station, it raises a concern that a person might be validating a tag on game, or disposing of evidence that he had been hunting before reaching the checking station. Vinnedge possessed a reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts and his own experience from which to draw the inference that Clark might have committed a game violation.
Hatler,
¶ 10;
¶15 Clark next contends that Warden Koppen lacked particularized suspicion to initiate the stop of his vehicle because he
had not yet observed Clark’s erratic driving. An arresting officer may rely on information from another officer to establish particularized suspicion.
McMaster,
¶ 16. Vinnedge communicated to Koppen his suspicions that Clark had committed a fish and game violation, thereby transferring the particularized suspicion possessed by Vinnedge to Koppen. Moreover, the fact that Clark failed to stop at the checking station, when considered in light of Vinnedge’s earlier observations, provided Koppen the requisite particularized suspicion. All hunters and fishermen must stop at game checking stations.
¶16 Affirmed.