Application of the Plain View Doctrine to Flashlight‐Illuminated Vehicle Searches and Multiple UPIS Convictions

Introduction

State v. Roberts, 2025 MT 110 (Mont. 2025), presents two interrelated Fourth Amendment and statutory interpretation issues. Eighteen-year-old Trevor Roberts attended an alcohol-free high-school graduation dance (“Rad Grad”) at the Sweet Grass County fairgrounds. After passing a portable breath test and reentering the hall, Roberts left the building and approached a vehicle in the adjoining parking lot. Deputy Whaley, who had been summoned to deter underage drinking at the event, recognized Roberts (then subject to court-ordered search conditions) and asked to search the vehicle. Roberts refused. Shining a flashlight into the rear seat, the deputy saw a marijuana‐smoking device in plain view, seized the car, obtained a warrant and discovered both marijuana and 25 alcoholic beverages. Roberts pled guilty to two counts of Underage Possession of an Intoxicating Substance (UPIS) – one for alcohol, one for marijuana – reserved his right to appeal denial of suppression and double jeopardy motions, and challenged:

Whether the flashlight‐illuminated viewing of contraband in the back seat violated the Fourth Amendment or Montana Constitution, and
Whether charging him with two UPIS misdemeanors for different substances violated the multiple‐conviction statute (double jeopardy).

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed. It held that:

Deputy Whaley’s approach in a public parking lot, recall of Roberts’s court-ordered search condition, and use of a flashlight to illuminate the rear seat did not constitute an unlawful seizure or search.
The marijuana-smoking device was in “plain view” once illuminated, satisfying the two prongs of the plain view doctrine: the officer was lawfully present, and its incriminating character was immediately apparent.
Seizing the car to preserve evidence and applying for a search warrant were permissible steps, after which discovery of additional contraband was lawful.
Under § 45-5-624, MCA, alcohol and marijuana qualify as distinct “intoxicating substances,” so simultaneous possession supports two separate UPIS convictions under § 46-11-410, MCA, without unconstitutional double jeopardy.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Several landmark decisions guided the Court’s reasoning:

Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983) – holding that the use of a flashlight to reveal contraband already in plain view does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) – enunciating the two‐pronged plain view test: lawful vantage point and immediately apparent incriminating character.
Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925) – explaining the automobile exception’s interface with plain view as a basis for warrantless seizure of contraband in vehicles.
State v. Elison, 2000 MT 288 – abrogating the broad automobile exception under Montana law but preserving plain view as a limited exception.
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) – distinguishing between consensual police‐citizen encounters and "seizures" requiring Fourth Amendment scrutiny.

Legal Reasoning

1. Consensual Encounter vs. Seizure: The Court explained that not every police‐citizen contact is a Fourth Amendment seizure. Deputy Whaley’s approach in a public area, without commands, restraint or implied detention, was a consensual encounter.

2. Plain View Doctrine: Under Horton and its Montana progeny, two conditions must coexist for warrantless seizure of contraband in plain view:

The officer must be lawfully present at the vantage point from which the object is plainly seen.
The incriminating nature of the object must be immediately apparent.

Deputy Whaley was lawfully in the public parking lot at the fairgrounds. He shined his flashlight – an ordinary investigative tool – to observe the rear seat and saw a marijuana‐smoking device. The device’s illicit nature, given Roberts’s underage status, was self-evident.

3. Use of Flashlight: The Court rejected the notion that a flashlight is “enhanced sensory technology” akin to thermal imaging or electronic surveillance. It held that flashlight illumination of an already visible area does not implicate heightened privacy concerns and poses no additional constitutional barrier.

4. Statutory Multiple Convictions (§ 46-11-410, MCA): Montana law treats alcohol and marijuana as separate “intoxicating substances” (§ 45-2-101(32), MCA; controlled substances Schedule I under § 50-32-222(4)(x), MCA). Although the offenses arose in one transaction, each offense is distinct by statutory definition and does not trigger the bar on multiple convictions.

Impact

This ruling clarifies two important aspects of Montana criminal procedure:

Law Enforcement Practices at Night: Officers may use flashlights to illuminate vehicles in darkness without transforming a plain view observation into a prohibited search or seizures. The decision preserves practical investigative tools while reaffirming core Fourth Amendment safeguards against arbitrary searches.
UPIS Prosecutions: Prosecutors may charge separate UPIS counts for different intoxicating substances found simultaneously. Defendants under age 21 who possess alcohol and an illicit drug in one encounter face independent charges unless the statutory multiple‐conviction bar specifically applies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Seizure” (Fourth Amendment): Any government conduct that restrains liberty or makes a person feel they cannot leave. A mere approach with questions, without coercion or physical restraint, is not a seizure.
“Search”: Government intrusion into an area where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Plain view of contraband in a public space (or a vehicle lawfully in plain view) does not count as a search.
“Plain View Doctrine”: Allows warrantless seizure of evidence when: (1) the officer is lawfully present, and (2) the incriminating nature is immediately obvious.
“Terry Stop” vs. Consensual Encounter: A brief investigative detention based on particularized suspicion (Terry) is more intrusive than a consensual approach where the person is free to leave.
Double Jeopardy / Multiple Convictions (§ 46-11-410, MCA): Prohibits multiple convictions in narrow circumstances (same offense, conspiracy, inconsistent fact findings, continuing course of conduct). Separate UPIS counts for alcohol and marijuana are not barred.

Conclusion

State v. Roberts confirms that law enforcement’s use of a flashlight to view otherwise plainly visible contraband in a vehicle at night does not violate the Fourth Amendment or Montana Constitution’s search and seizure protections. The opinion reinforces plain view principles, distinguishes flashlight use from advanced surveillance technologies, and upholds common-sense policing tools. Statutorily, it clarifies that simultaneous possession of distinct intoxicating substances by a minor supports separate UPIS convictions without running afoul of Montana’s multiple–conviction statute. Taken together, this decision balances investigative efficacy with constitutional privacy safeguards and provides clear guidance for lower courts, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers in similar contexts.