 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hatler3/1/2001
MCA, exception to the above statute applies to this case. Section 61-5-104(2), MCA (1997), provides:
(2) A nonresident who is at least 15 years of age and who is in immediate possession of a valid operator's license issued to the nonresident by the nonresident's home state or country may operate a motor vehicle, except a commercial motor vehicle, in this state.
Hatler takes the position that although Cohenour was aware that he did not have a valid Montana driver's license, he did not know, until after the stop, that Hatler's Idaho license had been suspended. In effect, Hatler argues that unless and until a Highway Patrol Officer checks to see whether a driver has a valid license in any other state, he cannot eliminate the possibility that the driver comes within the § 61-5-104(2), MCA, exception to the requirement that a driver have a Montana driver's license. We find no merit to this contention.
An officer only needs to possess a reasonable suspicion, based upon objective data, that an offense has been committed. In State v. Lafferty, 1998 MT 247, 9, 291 Mont. 157, 9, 967 P.2d 363, 9, we held that " hen circumstances create a particularized suspicion that a person is committing an offense, a peace officer may stop the person or the vehicle containing the person to determine whether to arrest the person. Section 46-5-401, MCA."
The requirement of particularized suspicion does not require an officer, before making an investigative stop, to possess proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed, to the exclusion of every possible innocent explanation or legal exception. The possibility that Hatler's circumstances might come within one of the numerous exceptions listed in § 61-5-104, MCA, does not preclude an officer from entertaining a reasonable suspicion that the driver is committing an offense and, pursuant to such suspicion, conducting an investigative stop. If Hatler had possessed a valid license from another jurisdiction, he would have had to display it to the patrolman. Section 61-5-116, MCA.
Officer Cohenour ascertained that Hatler was driving with an expired Montana driver's license. This alone was obviously objective data from which Cohenour, an experienced officer, could form a particularized suspicion that Hatler was committing an offense-that is, driving without a valid Montana driver's license, in violation of § 61-5-102, MCA.
We hold that the District Court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and that those findings were correctly applied as a matter of law. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
W. WILLIAM LEAPHART
We concur:
KARLA M. GRAY
JAMES C. NELSON
TERRY N. TRIEWEILER
PATRICIA COTTER
|