 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Merrill6/29/2004
Submitted on Briefs: May 26, 2004
China Merrill appeals from the order of the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, entered on February 19, 2003, denying her motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence by concluding that defendant was not unlawfully detained subsequent to an investigatory traffic stop and, further, that defendant had consented to a warrantless search.
BACKGROUND
On November 18, 2002, Lincoln County Deputy Sheriff Shane Hight, supervised by Deputy Richard Larsen, pulled over Merrill for making an improper lane change. The two officers approached Merrill's car, Hight on the driver's side and Larsen on the passenger side. Hight asked Merrill for her driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. Receiving these papers, Hight returned to the patrol car and called the dispatcher, from whom he learned the identity of the owner of the vehicle, who was not Merrill. Hight recognized the vehicle owner as someone suspected of involvement with dangerous drugs. Returning to Merrill, Hight gave her a verbal warning about the lane change and told her she was free to go. Merrill then asked if she was going to get a ticket, and Hight confirmed that he was just going to give her a warning.
Stepping away from the vehicle, Hight watched Merrill for a few seconds and noticed that Merrill was acting unusually nervous. As Larsen turned and headed back to the patrol car, Hight, suspicious because of the report about the car owner, asked Merrill if he could talk to her for a minute. She answered that he could. Hight then asked her if he could search the car. Again, Merrill replied affirmatively. After Merrill stepped out of the car and closed the door, Hight asked if he could search her person, including her pockets. She said, "Okay." Hight requested that Merrill empty her pockets on the trunk of her car, and as she did so, he noticed a piece of cellophane that he suspected contained illegal drugs. During his testimony, Deputy Larsen conveyed what happened next:
A. He [Hight] said "What's that?" And she [Merrill] said, "That's just garbage."
Q: And then was there further conversation?
A: Shane [Hight] picked that up, and started to unwrap it, and said, "China, is this your meth?"
Q: And what did she say?
A: She said, "Yes."
The cellophane contained a substance that field tested positive for methamphetamine. Hight then placed Merrill under arrest, and Merrill was subsequently charged with possession of dangerous drugs.
Merrill filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained in the search, which was denied by the District Court. Thereafter, the parties entered a plea agreement wherein Merrill pled guilty to the charge and reserved her right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the District Court deferred imposition of sentence. Merrill appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The standard of review of a trial court's grant of a motion to suppress is whether the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether those findings were correctly applied as a matter of law. State v. Henderson , 1998 MT 233, 9, 291 Mont. 77, 9, 966 P.2d 137, 9. A court's findings are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by substantial evidence, the court has misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or our review of the record convinces us that a mistake has been committed. Henderson , 9.
DISCUSSION
Did the District Cour
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|