State v. Wilson

Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District, In and For the County of Blaine, Cause No. DC-2016-23 Honorable Yvonne Laird, Presiding Judge COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Jeremy S. Yellin, Attorney at Law, Havre, Montana For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Madison L. Mattioli, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Kelsie Harwood, Blaine County Attorney, Chinook, Montana Filed: /s/_________
Clerk Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court. ¶1 Johnathan Samual Wilson appeals from a February 17, 2017 Seventeenth Judicial District Court Order in which his motion to suppress was denied. We reverse. ¶2 We restate the issue on appeal as follows:

Did the District Court err when it denied Wilson's motion to suppress based on its determination that the drug investigation was supported by particularized suspicion?

¶3 The relevant facts are not in dispute. On June 21, 2016, at approximately 5:06 p.m. Montana Highway Patrolman Cody Smith ("Smith"), while in his marked patrol car on the eastbound shoulder of U.S. Highway 2 near Chinook, Montana, observed an eastbound 2013 Chrysler LX with a North Dakota license plate approaching from the rear. According to Smith, the occupants of the vehicle looked at Smith's patrol car and then immediately looked away. Smith found this behavior suspicious. He ran the North Dakota license plate, which showed that the vehicle's registration had expired. Smith initiated a traffic stop. ¶4 Smith approached the driver's side of the vehicle and informed the driver of the reason for the stop. The driver, later identified as Scott Dean Paramore, seemed surprised to learn that the registration had expired. Smith noted that Paramore was trembling and that the passenger, Johnathan Wilson, appeared nervous and avoided eye contact with Smith. Smith found their nervousness unusual. Smith then noticed a rental sticker in the rear passenger window, a suitcase in the back seat, and that the vehicle had a "somewhat lived in appearance." ¶19 Wilson was charged with Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs with Intent to Distribute, a felony, in violation of § 45-9-103, MCA; Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, a felony, in violation of § 45-9-102(1), MCA; and Criminal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a misdemeanor, in violation of § 45-10-103, MCA. Wilson filed a motion to suppress the evidence gathered from the vehicle. The District Court denied the motion on the basis that Smith had sufficient facts to expand the traffic stop into a drug investigation and particularized suspicion to justify a canine search of the vehicle's exterior. ¶20 On September 12, 2017, Wilson pleaded No Contest to Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, a felony, and the District Court imposed a one-year deferred sentence and a $2,295.13 fine.

¶21 We review a district court's grant or denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the court's findings are clearly erroneous and whether those findings were applied correctly as a matter of law. State v. Gill, 2012 MT 36, ¶ 10, 364 Mont. 182, 272 P.3d 60. A district court's finding that particularized suspicion exists is a question of fact which we review for clear error. Gill, ¶ 10 (citing City of Missoula v. Moore, 2011 MT 61, ¶ 10, 360 Mont. 22, 251 P.3d 679). A finding is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence, if the lower court has misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if our review of the record leaves us with the firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Gill, ¶ 10.

Estes, ¶ 18. Smith did not identify similarly incriminating conduct. We find that Estes is not sufficiently analogous and is factually distinguishable here. ¶36 In Montana, an investigative stop "may not last longer than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop." Section 46-5-403, MCA. Our function as an appellate court is to interpret statutes according to the plain meaning of the words used. State v. Madsen, 2013 MT 281, ¶ 8, 372 Mont. 102, 317 P.3d 806. ¶37 Here, the purpose of the stop was to ticket Paramore for expired registration and failure to provide proof of insurance. Smith issued these citations at 5:27 p.m., just over twenty minutes after the stop was initiated. The stop should have ended there. However, Paramore and Wilson were kept at the scene for an additional thirty-five minutes until the canine sniff was finished and they were permitted to leave. Smith lacked the requisite particularized suspicion to extend the stop into a drug investigation; § 46-5- 403, MCA, required their release after the citations were issued.

¶38 Smith lacked the particularized suspicion required to extend the traffic stop into a drug investigation and the stop violated § 46-5-403, MCA. The extension of the stop to request a search by a K-9 unit violated the constitutional shield against unreasonable searches. ¶39 The conviction is reversed.

/S/ MIKE McGRATH ¶50 At the suppression hearing, Wilson's counsel argued to the District Court that Smith's determination to initiate a dog sniff of the subject vehicle was "insanity, really." Actually, it was perceptive police work based upon extensive training. I believe the District Court correctly determined that sufficient evidence existed for the extended stop, and therefore I would affirm.

/S/ JIM RICE