 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Loney8/3/2004
Heard at Oral Argument: May 20, 2004
Submitted: June 8, 2004
The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, determined the State of Montana lacked particularized suspicion for the investigative stop of a vehicle driven by Shawntaigne Loney and granted Loney's motion to dismiss the charges against her. The State appeals. We reverse and remand.
BACKGROUND
At about 2:30 a.m. on June 17, 2002, Jason Caughey was driving home to Great Falls, Montana, at the end of his shift at the Belt Rodeo as a reserve deputy for the Cascade County Sheriff's Office. Caughey observed a white Pontiac cross the center line of the two-lane highway in a no-passing zone. He saw the Pontiac cross the center line a total of three times at speeds of between 65 and 70 miles per hour, each time then weaving back the other way and twice crossing the fog line at the edge of the highway.
Caughey stopped the Pontiac because of the traffic violation he had witnessed-crossing the center line--and because he suspected the driver might be intoxicated. He subsequently cited the driver, Shawntaigne Loney, for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) in violation of § 61-8-401, MCA, and failing to drive on the right side of the roadway in violation of § 61-8-321, MCA. In a justice court trial, a jury found Loney guilty of both offenses. She appealed to District Court for trial de novo.
In the District Court, Loney moved to dismiss the charges on grounds that Caughey's initial stop of her was illegal because there was insufficient objective data from which an experienced officer could infer criminal wrongdoing. After a hearing at which Caughey testified, the District Court granted Loney's motion to dismiss. The State appeals.
DISCUSSION
Did the District Court err in granting Loney's motion to dismiss based on its determination that Caughey lacked particularized suspicion to justify an investigative stop?
We review a district court's grant of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case de novo ; that is, we review the decision to determine whether it was correct. State v. Beanblossom , 2002 MT 351, 9, 313 Mont. 394, 9, 61 P.3d 165, 9 (citation omitted).
Pursuant to § 46-5-401, MCA, "a peace officer may stop any person or vehicle that is observed in circumstances that create a particularized suspicion that the person or occupant of the vehicle has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense." Montana courts use a two-part test for determining the existence of particularized suspicion sufficient to justify an investigative stop: (1) objective data from which an experienced officer can make certain inferences; and (2) a resulting suspicion that the occupant of a certain vehicle is or has been engaged in wongdoing. State v. Eixenberger , 2004 MT 127, 16, 321 Mont. 298, 16, 90 P.3d 453, 16 (citations omitted). Whether particularized suspicion exists to justify an investigative stop is a question of fact which depends on the totality of the circumstances. Eixenberger , 16 (citation omitted) .
In granting Loney's motion to dismiss for lack of particularized suspicion, the District Court compared this case to Morris v. State , 2001 MT 13, 304 Mont. 114, 18 P.3d 1003. In Morris , a city police officer initiated a traffic stop after a vehicle drifted across the eastbound lanes of traffic on a multi-lane city street and then drifted and touched the eastbound fog line once or twice. The officer subsequently arrested the driver--Morris--for DUI and, when Morris refused to submit to breath tests, his driving privileges were suspended pursuant to § 61-8-402, MCA. Mor
Page 1 2 3 Montana DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|