 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Merrill6/29/2004
(citations omitted); Roberts , 14 n.5 (" purely voluntary encounter between a law enforcement officer and a citizen intrudes upon no constitutionally protected interest and, thus, is accorded no protection under the Fourth Amendment.").
Finally, Merrill argues that the District Court failed to analyze her seizure claim in relation to probable cause and that it failed to examine the searches in relation to a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirement. It is unclear whether Merrill intends to challenge only the constitutionality of the "seizure" of her person or if she means separately to include a challenge to the searches of her car and her pockets as well. However, because she fails to develop any theme, supported by authority, tending to prove the illegality of the searches, we construe her argument as challenging the "seizure" of her person only. See In re Estate of Spencer , 2002 MT 304, 20, 313 Mont. 40, 20, 59 P.3d 1160, 20 ("The Court will not consider unsupported issues or arguments."); Rule 23(a)(4), M.R.App.P. (requiring that an appellant's argument contain citations to the authorities relied upon).
We further conclude that the District Court conducted a proper analysis of Merrill's seizure claim. Probable cause and warrant exceptions are analyzed to determine the propriety of a challenged search or seizure. See State v. Van Dort , 2003 MT 104, 18, 315 Mont. 303, 18, 68 P.3d 728, 18; State v. Hardaway , 2001 MT 252, 36, 307 Mont. 139, 36, 36 P.3d 900, 36. Merrill's claim involves a threshold issue of whether she was seized at all, the determination of which is properly made under the test we have articulated herein.
CONCLUSION
Upon the conclusion of the investigatory stop, a reasonable person in Merrill's circumstances would have felt free to leave. Therefore, Merrill was not unconstitutionally seized, and the subsequent searches were voluntary. The District Court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, and those findings were correctly applied as a matter of law.
Affirmed.
JIM RICE
We concur:
KARLA M. GRAY
PATRICIA O. COTTER
JOHN WARNER
JIM REGNIER
Page 1 2 3 4 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|