State v. Reeves

2019 MT 151, 444 P.3d 394 · Montana Supreme Court · July 2, 2019

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court held that a deputy lacked particularized suspicion to stop Billy Clayton Reeves after observing him leave a brewery parking lot, wait briefly at an intersection, and delay activating his turn signal. The court reversed the district court’s denial of Reeves’s motion to dismiss and remanded with instructions to vacate his conviction and dismiss the charge with prejudice.

Court
Montana Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Justice Ingrid Gustafson; Chief Justice Mike McGrath; Justice James Jeremiah Shea; Justice Dirk M. Sandefur; Justice Jim Rice
Jurisdiction
Montana
Decision date
July 2, 2019
Procedural posture
Reeves appealed the Fourth Judicial District Court's denial of his motion to dismiss, which challenged the legality of the traffic stop for lack of particularized suspicion. After a nonjury trial, the District Court convicted him of aggravated driving under the influence, third offense.
Standard of review
A district court's finding that particularized suspicion exists is reviewed for clear error because it is a question of fact. A finding is clearly erroneous if it is unsupported by substantial evidence, reflects a misapprehension of the effect of the evidence, or leaves the reviewing court with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
Precedential value
Published Montana Supreme Court opinion; binding precedent in Montana.
Parties
Billy Clayton Reeves III v. State of Montana
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

suppression of evidencefourth amendmentsearch and seizureprobable causeappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the deputy had particularized suspicion supported by objective data to justify the traffic stop.
  2. Whether Reeves's departure from a brewery, facial expression, brief delay at the intersection, and delayed turn signal constituted objective data indicating that he was driving under the influence.

Holdings

  1. The traffic stop was not justified because the deputy lacked objective data supporting a particularized suspicion that Reeves was committing, had committed, or was about to commit an offense.
  2. Because the traffic stop was unlawful, the District Court's denial of Reeves's motion to dismiss had to be reversed, the conviction vacated, and the charge dismissed with prejudice.

Key quotations

When the only basis for suspecting a specific person of wrongdoing is inferences that could be drawn from the conduct of virtually any law-abiding person, the resulting suspicion cannot, by definition, be particularized. (¶ 13)
Because the traffic stop was not justified under § 46-5-401, MCA, we reverse the District Court's denial of Reeves' Motion to Dismiss and remand to the District Court to vacate Reeves' conviction and dismiss with prejudice the charge against him. (¶ 23)

Factual background

A deputy watched Reeves leave a brewery parking lot, wait at an intersection, activate his turn signal, and make a legal left turn onto an icy street. The deputy stopped Reeves for allegedly failing to signal at least 100 feet before the intersection, but later conceded that Reeves had not committed a traffic violation and that the parking lot did not provide a 100-foot approach. The deputy smelled alcohol after approaching the vehicle, and a later blood test showed Reeves's blood alcohol content was more than twice the legal limit.

Procedural history

Reeves moved to dismiss in Missoula County Justice Court on the ground that the deputy lacked particularized suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, and the Justice Court granted the motion. The State appealed to the Fourth Judicial District Court, which denied Reeves's renewed motion to dismiss, found particularized suspicion, and entered judgment against him after a nonjury trial. The Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the conviction and dismiss the charge with prejudice.

Remand instructions

The District Court must vacate Reeves's conviction and dismiss the aggravated DUI charge with prejudice.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…