Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court affirming the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress evidence, holding that law enforcement officers lacked particularized suspicion to justify their investigatory stop of Defendant.Defendant was stopped by law enforcement officers based solely on his "flicking" his high beams on and off once. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to aggravated driving under the influence, third offense, reserving the right to appeal the justice court's denial of his motion to suppress. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the totality of the circumstances did not give rise to particularized suspicion, and therefore, the seizure violated Defendant's constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. View "State v. Gardner" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained when law enforcement officers entered Defendant's private property without a warrant, holding that that the State did not prove exigent circumstances permitting a warrantless search.At issue was whether Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his residence's driveway when he told a sheriff's deputy, who was attempting to effectuate a traffic stop, that he was trespassing and needed a warrant and whether exigent circumstances existed to allow the sheriff's deputy to conduct a warrantless investigation on the property. The Supreme Court held (1) the deputy sheriff properly entered the driveway when he already had initiated a traffic stop but exceeded his authority after Defendant asked him to leave; and (2) Defendant's failure to stop for a minor traffic violation did not create an exigency allowing the deputy sheriff to conduct a warrantless investigation after Defendant invoked his right to privacy. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of deliberate homicide with a weapons enhancement, holding that there were no grounds upon which to reverse Defendant's conviction.On appeal, Defendant argued that the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct in its opening and closing statement, resulting in plain error, and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in several respects. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the prosecutor's challenged statements were proper; and (2) Defendant failed to establish that trial counsel provided record-based ineffective assistance of counsel, in violation of Defendant's constitutional rights. View "State v. Polak" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the district court (1) resolving the parties' summary judgment motions, ruling in favor of Defendant, Plaintiff's former employer, in Plaintiff's wrongful discharge lawsuit; and (2) denying Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint in that case to add an age discrimination claim, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err in holding that Defendant's failure to exhaust internal grievance procedures precluded his wrongful discharge case as a matter of law; and (2) did not abuse its discretion in finding Defendant's age discrimination claim futile and therefore denying his motion for leave to amend the complaint. View "Hathaway v. Zoot Enterprises, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of felony sexual intercourse without consent, holding that Defendant received constitutionally effective assistance of counsel.At issue was whether Defendant's trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when counsel allowed prior consistent statements from a forensic interview into evidence without challenge. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the record before the Court implied at least a plausible justification for counsel's actions; and (2) without more evidence, it cannot be determined whether defense counsel did not perform effectively for Defendant. View "State v. Mikesell" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of indecent exposure to a minor, sexual abuse of children in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-625(1)(c) and (4), and sexual abuse of children, in violation of Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-625(1)(c) and (2)(b), holding that Defendant's counsel provided record-based ineffective assistance of counsel that required reversal and remand for a new trial.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Defendant's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the statutory basis for Count I when the statute upon which the charge was based did not go into effect until after one of the alleged incidents occurred; and (2) the ex post facto application of Mont. Code Ann. 45-5-625(1)(c) for Count II and Count III required remand for a new trial. View "State v. Tipton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress illegal drug evidence seized as a result of a protective pat-down search for weapons and in a subsequent search of his vehicle, holding that the district court erred in concluding that the protective pat-down search of Defendant was justified.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court erroneously held that the pat-down search of Defendant was justified under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and Mont. Code Ann. 46-5-401(2)(b), whether incident to a valid Terry investigative stop or analogous community caretaker doctrine stop, but did not err in concluding that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the illegal drug evidence seized in the warrantless pat-down and vehicle searches at issue; and (2) therefore, the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in his coat pocket as a result of the initial pat-down search but correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence found in the subsequent consent search of his vehicle. View "State v. Laster" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court convicting Defendant of sexual intercourse without consent, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting admission of evidence regarding other acts and statements made by Defendant.Defendant filed a motion in liming to preclude the admission of evidence involving the occurrence of any other sexual acts or statements regarding the victim. The district court denied the motion, concluding that evidence of Defendant's sexual conduct with the victim, apart from the conduct alleged in the information, was relevant and admissible. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence. View "State v. Murphy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress based on its determination that Defendant had not been seized, holding that the district court clearly erred when it concluded that Defendant was not seized.Defendant was found guilty of felony possession with intent to distribute. The district court order denying Defendant's motion to suppress concluded that Defendant voluntarily engaged with the law enforcement officer and was not seized because a reasonable person would have felt free to disengage and leave. Further, the order concluded that Defendant validly consented to the officer searching his vehicle. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant was seized in this case; and (2) the officer did not have particularized suspicion to justify the seizure. View "State v. Pham" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the deliberate homicide case against him, holding that the district court erred when it ordered Appellant to pay his public defender fees.Appellant was convicted of the deliberate homicide of his father and for tampering with evidence. The district court imposed a seventy-year prison year for the two offenses and ordered Appellant to pay $25,250 in costs for the assistance of assigned counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's due process rights were not violated by the State's conduct investigating and relating the crime scene; (2) the prosecutor's comments at trial did not improperly distort Appellant's presumption of innocence or the State's burden of proof; but (3) the imposition of costs must be stricken in the interests of justice. View "State v. Fisher" on Justia Law