State v. Pierce

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s decision upholding Paula R. Pierce’s misdemeanor DUI conviction and sentence. The Court held that the arresting officer had particularized suspicion to stop Pierce’s vehicle based on a citizen informant’s tip and corroboration of the vehicle and occupants’ descriptions, and issued the decision as a noncitable memorandum opinion.

Holdings

1. The appeal was without merit because settled Montana law controlled and the District Court correctly affirmed the finding that the citizen informant's information was sufficiently corroborated.
2. The absence of a second officer questioning the informant did not make Pratt distinguishable where the arresting officer independently confirmed the vehicle and related details supplied by the informant.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the officer's observations sufficiently corroborated the citizen informant's information to satisfy the third factor of the particularized-suspicion test under State v. Pratt.
2. Whether the absence of a second officer questioning the informant made State v. Pratt distinguishable.

Disposition

affirmed