Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The district court correctly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence based on an alleged lack of particularized suspicion to seize his vehicle.A trooper stopped Defendant for expired North Dakota vehicle registration. The trooper informed Defendant that he had a particularized suspicion of criminal activity within the vehicle and therefore would deploy a drug canine. After the dog alerted near the driver’s side door, the trooper applied for and received a warrant to search the vehicle. The State later charged Defendant with multiple drug counts. The district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress, and Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of dangerous drugs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in concluding that the canine search of Defendant’s vehicle was lawfully conducted pursuant to a particularized suspicion of narcotics activity; and (2) the search of Defendant’s vehicle was lawfully carried out pursuant to a valid search warrant. View "State v. Estes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions of two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of aggravated assault. On appeal, Defendant primarily challenged the effectiveness of his counsel regarding the jury instructions. The Supreme Court held (1) defense counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to request a bystander justifiable use of force jury instruction; and (2) the district court did not impose illegal parole conditions by employing the language “for any period of community supervision” because that language was qualified by the statement that followed applying “conditions of probation.” View "State v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part Defendant’s sentence for his conviction of felony possession of dangerous drugs but remanded to the district court with instructions to strike twenty-three recommended conditions for community supervision. The district court sentenced Defendant to ten years in prison and included a number of conditions in the written judgment. The Supreme Court held (1) the prosecutor’s remarks at sentencing were improper, but they did not constitute reversible error because they did not prejudice Defendant; (2) Defendant failed to demonstrate that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing hearing; (3) the district court did not impose an unlawful sentence; and (4) the twenty-three recommended conditions listed in the written judgment were not included in the oral pronouncement of sentence and therefore must be stricken. View "State v. Lehrkamp" on Justia Law

The justice court properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during the interrogation of Defendant by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Park (FWP) game wardens at a game check station.Defendant was charged with license, permit or tag offense; unlawful possession, transfer, or transport of game animal; and hunting or killing of a game animal over the legal limit. Defendant moved to suppress evidence gathered at the FWP check station, asserting that his incriminating statements were the fruits of an illegal interrogation. The justice court concluded that Defendant was not required to receive Miranda warnings because he was not subject to custodial interrogation at the check station. Defendant was then found guilty on all three counts. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not taken into custody for purposes of Miranda, and therefore, the statements he made to FWP game wardens were admissible against him; and (2) under the totality of the circumstances, Defendant’s admissions and confession were voluntary. View "State v. Maile" on Justia Law

Defendant entered a guilty plea to aggravated driving under the influence, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. After an evidentiary hearing on appeal, the district court denied Defendant’s motion to suppress. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, a corroborated tip from an identified citizen informant based, in part, on personal observations of a co-worker was sufficiently reliable to provide the law enforcement officer with particularized suspicion to stop Defendant’s vehicle. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Zietlow" on Justia Law

The district court did not err in ruling that Defendant’s federal conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine did not bar a subsequent state prosecution for possession of dangerous drugs on double jeopardy grounds.Defendant pled guilty to a charge of conspiracy to distribute in federal court. Thereafter, Defendant moved to dismiss the State’s drug-related charges, arguing that the State prosecution violated Montana’s double jeopardy prohibition. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, Defendant entered an Alford plea to one count of felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant’s possession of methamphetamine for his personal use was a distinct and separate prosecutable offense pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-102(1). View "State v. Glass" on Justia Law

In 2009, Appellant was convicted of aggravated kidnapping and sexual intercourse without consent. In 2011, Appellant filed a complaint against certain participants in his 2009 criminal trial, alleging that the victim unlawfully taped a conversation between the victim and Appellant, and the taping and subsequent use of the taped conversation by Defendants violated his constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment and the federal wiretap statute. The federal magistrate dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. A federal district court judge affirmed. Appellant then filed a complaint in a Montana district court, alleging that the victim had recorded their telephone conversation and Defendants had used the taped conversation in violation of Montana’s privacy in communications state and his state and federal constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, concluding that Appellant’s case was barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of res judicata. The court also declared Appellant a vexatious litigant and imposed a pre-filing order on him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) properly applied the statute of limitations and doctrine of res judicata, and (2) did not abuse its discretion in finding Appellant to be a vexatious litigant and imposing a pre-filing order. View "Belanus v. Potter" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to the possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. Defendant preserved his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during the warrantless search of the vehicle he was driving. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court made sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law in its order denying Defendant’s motion to suppress to allow informed appellate review; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress, as the police did not need to obtain Defendant’s consent to search the vehicle and its internal compartments. View "State v. Baty" on Justia Law

Allen Longsoldier, Jr., an eighteen-year-old Native American, died as a result of alcohol withdrawal while in custody at the Hill County Detention Center after he was arrested by Blaine County authorities. Longsoldier’s estate filed a claim against Blaine and Hill Counties with the Montana Human Rights Bureau alleging that the Counties discriminated against Longsoldier because of his race and his disability - alcoholism. A hearing officer concluded that the Counties had not illegally discriminated against Longsoldier. The Human Rights Commission found clear error in the hearing officer’s findings of fact and concluded that the Counties had discriminated against Longsoldier. Presiding Judge Jeffrey Sherlock with the district court reversed the Commission’s decision and reinstated the hearing officer’s order as the final agency decision. On the Estate’s motion to alter or amend, Judge James Reynolds, who had assumed jurisdiction of the case, found that Judge Sherlock had committed a “manifest error of law” by fashioning an improper remedy. The Supreme Court affirmed Judge Sherlock’s order and reversed Judge Reynold’s order, holding (1) Judge Sherlock correctly concluded that the Commission improperly modified the Hearing Officer’s findings; and (2) Judge Reynolds incorrectly concluded that Judge Sherlock erred as a matter of law by reinstating the hearing officer’s decision as the final agency decision. View "Blaine County v. Stricker" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the charge of criminal distribution of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute. After a sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a six-year deferred sentence, with a $1,500 fine to be paid to the Eastern Montana Drug Task Force, and a $15,000 fine pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 45-9-130. Defendant appealed, challenging the imposition of the $15,000 fine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the $15,000 fine was not a sentence enhancement that violated the requirements of Apprendi v. New Jersey and Mont. Code Ann. 46-1-401; (2) the $15,000 fine did not violate Montana’s constitutional prohibition of “excessive fines”; and (3) Defendant’s double jeopardy argument, which he did not raise below, did not warrant plain error review, and Defendant was not entitled to relief pursuant to the Lenihan Rule. View "State v. Le" on Justia Law