Big Sky Blawg

Cooper was arrested after a traffic stop in which she failed field sobriety tests and was cited for DUI. A motion to suppress evidence gathered after the traffic stop on the basis that the trooper who stopped her lacked particularized suspicion, was denied. Cooper appealed and SCOMONT sustained.

After pulling her over, the trooper told Cooper that the reason he had initiated the stop was because snow obstructed the view of her license plate. However, he testified to many other factors including that:

• he pickup truck did not come to a stop before entering the highway, but “abruptly” pulled out onto the highway in front of Kloster, forcing him to take evasive action to avoid a possible crash;
• Cooper crossed the fog line and performed a U-turn; and
• Cooper was driving incredibly slowly

SCOMOT ruled that “[the trooper’s] articulable facts included his observation of Cooper’s truck pulling into oncoming traffic, nearly causing a collision; Cooper leaving the parking lot of a bar hosting a special event known to serve alcohol; Cooper driving incredibly slow; and Cooper’s truck traveling over the fog line.” This justified a particularized suspicion and legitimized the stop making the evidence obtained admissible.

Justice Nelson concurred to note that the obscured license plate alone would not have justified sufficient particularized suspicion for detaining Cooper. Nelson argued that snow obscuring a plate is not sufficient to justify a traffic stop in Montana during the winter, arguing that reading MCA § 61-3-301(1)(a) in this fashion would produce an absurd result and, therefore, should be avoided. However, given the additional reasons for the stop, Nelson concurred.

According to the Flathead Beacon, Mike Wheat will seek reelection for the SCOMONT seat he was recently appointed to by Governor Schweitzer. What replaced Justice Warner. Meanwhile, Justice Leaphart has stated that he will not run for his seat again. Leaphart has served on the Court since 1994.

Sudan Drilling, Inc. v. Anacker – 2009 MT 14

The Anackers entered into a verbal contract with Sudan to drill a well.  Sudan began drilling the well where Anacker’s subcontractor had prepared a flat pad for the equipment.  After drilling was partially complete, Anacker noticed the well was too close to the neighbor’s drain field.  Sudan was notified and directed to abandon the first well and drill a second, which he did.

Sudan filed a complaint to foreclose on a construction lien for the amount of drilling the first well: $3,970.  After depositions, the District Court granted summary judgment for Anacker based on two grounds: 1) failure by Sudan to complete the first well defeated his lien; and 2) Sudan breached the contract by not drilling the well in a workmanlike manner.

Because the parties had entered a contract to drill a well.  A well was completed, the second well, and thus the contract work was substantially performed.  As such, Justice Nelson ruled that the district court’s first rational was unfounded.

Regarding the second issue, some deposition testimony supported the assertion that Sudan drilled in the wrong location, while some indicated that the location of the first well was Anacker’s mistake.  Therefore, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the abandonment of the first well was a change order or a breach, rendering summary judgment improper.

Justice Cotter wrote a concurring opinion stating she agreed that the decision was in keeping with SCOMONT’s precedents on construction lien disputes, but wrote to express her belief that cases such as this “confound the purpose underlying the construction lien statutes.” Sudan, ¶ 18.

Download Sudan v. Anacker

Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc.  v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue  - 2009 MT 5

In a dispute over the proper test for determining “business income,” under § 15-31-301(1), MCA, SCOMONT concluded that the statute includes both a transactional test and a separate function test.  This determination was based on the statutory language and extrinsic aids, such as the relevant act’s statutory history, and the act’s goals of promoting uniformity among states in the taxation of corporations.

Download Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. v. State Dep’t of Revenue

State v. Neufeld – 2009 MT 235

Around 2002, then 28 year old Neufeld began having sexual intercourse with then 13 year old K.B.  Neufeld videotaped himself with K.B. and photographed the girl in sexual poses and performing sexual acts.  K.B.’s father discovered some of the photos, contacted the police, and Neufeld was arrested.  He was charged with sexual intercourse without consent in state District Court, and with sexual exploitation of children, receipt of child pornography, and possession of child pornography in federal court.  He pled guilty to the federal charges of sexual exploitation of children and possession of child pornography, and received a sentencing enhancement because the offense involved the commission of a sexual act on a minor.

After his federal conviction, Neufeld moved to dismiss the state charges based on § 46-11-504(1), MCA, which provides in pertinent part:

When conduct constitutes an offense within the jurisdiction of any state or federal court, a prosecution in any jurisdiction is a bar to a subsequent prosecution if:

(1) the first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction and the subsequent prosecution is based on an offense arising out of the same transaction:

The majority ruled that “the prohibited conduct in this case [sexual exploitation of children] necessarily included sexual intercourse with a minor.”  Neufeld, ¶ 17.  And that “under the facts of this case the offenses of sexual exploitation of children and sexual intercourse without consent are equivalent.”  Id. at ¶ 17.

Justice Rice concurred, noting his belief that only the sentencing enhancement triggered the provisions of § 46-11-504, MCA, arguing that the federal offense of sexual exploitation of children did not necessarily include sexual intercourse.

Download State v. Neufeld

State v. Schwartz – 2009 MT 234

After selling marijuana twice to a confidential informant who was wearing a wire, Schwartz was arrested and charged with distribution of dangerous drugs.  Because the police failed to obtain a warrant authorizing the electronic surveillance, Schwartz filed a motion to suppress “all statements, cash, drugs, observations and other evidence obtained as the result of an illegal warantless search conducted by a confidential informant outfitted with a body wire.”  The District Court denied the motion based primarily on State v. Brown, 232 Mont. 1 (1988), which held that one participant to a conversation can consent to having it electronically monitored without the necessity of a search warrant.  After the denial of his motion, Schwartz pled guilty, but reserved his right to appeal.

Despite the fact that State v. Goetz, 2008 MT 296, effectively over ruled Brown (holding that electronic monitoring and recording of an individual’s conversations with the confidential informant in that case constituted a search subject to the warrant requirement of Article II, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution), SCOMONT ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support Schwartz’s guilty plea wholly apart from the electronic surveillance.  The District Court’s decision was affirmed.

Download State v. Schwartz

Emanuel v. Great Falls School District – 2009 MT 185

In January 2002, Daniel Robbins (Robbins) turned in a school assignment containing his New Year’s Resolution List.  The list contained several violent items, including “[g]et a drivers license so I can do those horrible things people like to read about in the paper,” and “kill the tooth fairy.”  There were no allegations that the list contained no specific threats against non-fictional persons.  This resulted in a meeting with Robbins’, his mother, and the school counselor.  Because nothing was resolved at this first meeting, a subsequent meeting with held with Robbins’, his mother, the school principal and the associate principal.  The conclusion of this meeting was that although the list was inappropriate and should be taken seriously, this was a teenage attempt at black humor.

Approximately 17 months later, Robbins purposely ran over Patricia Emanuel as she was jogging past Robbins’ high school.  The passenger in Robbins’ vehicle told police that Robbins stated that he planned to run her over and engage in necrophilia with her corpse.

Emanuel filed suit against GFSD (Robbins’ school), alleging that the school was negligent in handling Robbins and the resolution list.  The District Court granted summary judgement for GFSD, finding that there was no special relationship between GFSD and Emanuel, therefore GFSD was under no duty to protect Emanuel from Robbins.

SCOMONT avoided the issue of whether a special relationship is required in order to give rise to the duty of ordinary care to protect others against harm from third persons by finding that Emanuel was not a foreseeable plaintiff.  “If a reasonably prudent defendant can foresee neither any danger of direct injury nor any risk from an intervening cause he is simply not negligent.”  Prindel v. Ravalli County, 2006 MT 62, ¶ 39.  SCOMONT concluded that GFSD need not have “foreseen that Robbins would deliberately run over a pedestrian, after school hours, off school grounds, nearly seventeen months after the disturbing New Year’s Resolution list was brought to its attention.”  Emanuel, ¶ 15.  “Therefore, the District Court did not err in concluding that, as a matter of law, GFSD owed no duty to Emanuel.”  Emanuel, ¶ 16.

Download Emanuel v. Great Falls School District

State v. Saale – 2009 MT 95

Saale was involved in a single car accident soon after leaving a Bar.  Passers by helped Salle out of her vehicle and noticed that she was highly intoxicated, but not seriously injured.  Soon after, Saale’s husband (Chris) arrived at the scene, place Saale in his vehicle and took her home.  When officers arrived on the scene, they learned of Saale’s departure and, en route to her home, contacted the on-call county attorney for advice on entering the home without a  warrant.  The officers were told they could enter the home without a warrant due to exigent circumstances.

Upon arriving at the home, officers were met by Chris who refused entry and placed himself in the doorway to block the trooper’s entry.  He was handcuffed and removed from the scene and Saale was removed from the residence and taken to the scene of her accident.  At the scene, she refused medical treatment, refused any field sobriety tests, and failed a portable breath test.  Saale’s Motion to Suppress the evidence obtained from the warrantless search of her home was denied in Justice Court and District Court on the basis of exigent circumstances. Saale appealed.

Exigent Circumstances are “those that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.”  State v. Wakeford, 1998 MT 16, ¶ 24.  The State argued that the potential destruction of evidence (Saale’s level of intoxication), and the possibility that Saale had sustained serious injuries justified the warrantless entry.

SCOMONT rejected the “destruction of evidence” argument because a person’s blood alcohol content (BAC) “is not evidence until it exists in a state capable of analysis.” State v. Peplow, 2001 MT 253, ¶ 25.  ”[T]aking into account our holding in Peplow, it is illogical to conclude there was an exigent circumstance arising from the potential destruction of evidence, as there was no physical evidence in existence.  Without a sample previously extracted from the body, there was simply no physical evince to destroy.”  Saale, ¶ 11.

The Court likewise rejected the physical safety argument because the officers had already been informed that Saale did not appear to be seriously injured by witnesses at the scene.  Additionally, Justice Cotter noted that “if the ostensible exigency had been a true concern for her physical well-being, the officers presumably would have taken Saale directly to the emergency room rather than have her sit idly and unattended in the backseat of a patrol car for 45 minutes while they investigated the scene.”  Saale, ¶ 14.

The State failed to meet their heavy burden in demonstrating the existence of truly exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry into Saale’s home.

Download State v. Saale