State v. Kaufman

• Decision Date: 12 December 2002
• Docket Number: No. 01-162, No. 01-345., No. 01-269
• Citation: 313 Mont. 1,59 P.3d 1166,2002 MT 294
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lonny Ray KAUFMAN; David Mitchell Kaufman; and Opal Inez Cox, Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

59 P.3d 1166

2002 MT 294

313 Mont. 1

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lonny Ray KAUFMAN; David Mitchell Kaufman; and Opal Inez Cox, Defendants and Appellants.

Nos. 01-162, 01-269, 01-345.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs October 25, 2001.

Decided December 12, 2002.

For Appellants: Kirk Krutilla, Superior, Montana; David Stenerson, Hamilton, Montana; Larry D. Mansch, Mansch & McLaverty, Missoula, Montana.

For Respondent: Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, C. Mark Fowler, Assistant Montana Attorney General, Helena, Montana; M. Shaun Donovan, Mineral County Attorney, Superior, Montana. Justice JAMES C. NELSON delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 This consolidated appeal raises the question of whether a police officer possessed particularized suspicion to justify an investigative stop of a vehicle occupied by the three Appellants. We reverse the Fourth Judicial District Court and conclude that when the officer determined prior to the stop that the vehicle's lighting system was not malfunctioning, he lacked the requisite particularized suspicion to conduct an investigative stop. Since the issue of whether the investigative stop was supported by particularized suspicion is dispositive, we do not reach the other issues raised by the Appellants.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 2 By Order of this Court, this appeal consolidates the separate appeals of Lonny Ray Kaufman (No. 01-162), Opal Inez Cox (No. 01-269) and David Mitchell Kaufman (No. 01-345). Lonny and Opal were arrested on March 9, 2000, after a traffic stop conducted by Mineral County Deputy Sheriff Mike Toth on Interstate 90 near Superior, Montana. As a result of the stop, Officer Toth discovered Lonny and Opal in possession of approximately two ounces of methamphetamine. Lonny and Opal were charged by information with criminal possession of dangerous drugs with the intent to sell, in violation of § 45-9-103, MCA. Lonny told the police that he worked as a drug courier for his cousin David. David was subsequently arrested and charged with possession and conspiracy to distribute dangerous drugs, in violation of §§ 45-9-101 and 102, MCA.

¶ 3 The three Appellants filed motions to dismiss, each claiming that Officer Toth lacked particularized suspicion to conduct an investigative stop on the night of March 9, 2000. On August 10, 2000, the District Court held a consolidated hearing on the motions to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the investigative stop. The court found that particularized suspicion justified the stop and denied the motions. Appellants requested reconsideration on the grounds that Officer Toth testified at the hearing that the taillamps of the Appellants' vehicle functioned properly on the night of the stop, which meant that Toth observed nothing that indicated the Appellants had committed, were in the process of committing or were likely to commit any criminal act. The Appellants also argued that the stop was an illegal pretext to allow Toth to investigate a hunch that the Appellants were engaged in wrong-doing. The court denied the motion to reconsider on December 5, 2000.

¶ 4 Appellants each pleaded guilty, preserving their rights to appeal the denial of their motions to suppress evidence. Lonny received a 10-year suspended sentence and a $2500 fine; Opal and David each received 7-year suspended sentences and $2500 fines.

¶ 5 At the hearing on the motion to suppress, Officer Toth testified that he was on a routine patrol at about midnight along Interstate 90 on the snowy night of March 9, 2000, when he observed a vehicle at the Quartz rest area occupied by two persons that he estimated to be 20 to 30 years of age. As he drove by the vehicle, Toth stated he looked directly at the female occupant who sat in the driver's seat "and there was no eye contact made. She didn't look at me." A routine records check revealed the car was registered to Richard Evans, who was approximately 74 years old. Toth explained to the court that the age difference between the registered owner and the vehicle occupants "put up some flags but there wasn't—you know. There was nothing there I could do about it and the fact that she wouldn't look at me, didn't make contact with me."

¶ 6 Officer Toth then drove east to the Tarkio exit on Interstate 90 where he parked alongside the highway. When the same vehicle passed him, Toth noticed that one taillamp appeared brighter than the other, which made it "look[ ] like the brake light was on." He then followed the vehicle for three to four miles. Toth testified that the vehicle moved at a slow rate of speed, swerved slightly over the fog line and the tires touched the painted center line. Although a video camera mounted in the patrol car driven by Toth recorded the suspect's driving behavior prior to the stop, and the video was viewed by the court, the tape is not part of the record on appeal.

¶ 7 At the suppression hearing, the Mineral County Attorney posed the following questions, which were answered by Officer Toth:

Q. Okay. And what was the reason, the reason you felt you had legal justification to stop the car?

A. For the one brake light.

Q. Okay did it have anything to do with crossing the line?

A. No. That was just another thing I had in the back of my head when I'd go to the car.

Toth affirmed on cross-examination that he did not stop the Appellants' vehicle for driving at a slow rate of speed, swerving, lack of eye contact or the age difference between the car's owner and the occupants. He declared repeatedly that the sole reason for the stop was that the right taillamp of the Appellants' vehicle shone more brightly than the left lamp, which gave him the impression that the right brake light was stuck on.

¶ 8 When Officer Toth signaled the suspects to pull over, he observed that the turn signal and brake lights of the Appellants' vehicle operated properly. He testified that he then got out of his patrol car and walked up to the driver's window and explained:

The reason I'm stopping you is I noticed your brake light appeared to be on but now that when you stopped it—that light still is brighter than your other light. It's not your brake lights. It's your running light is a lot brighter now than your other light, and you need to get that looked at, but its not a big deal.

At that point, Toth proceeded to ask for the driver's license and registration, to inquire about the car's ownership and to question the Appellants about their reasons for traveling on the Interstate that night. No citation for a faulty taillamp or brake light was issued.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 9 The standard of review of a district court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence is whether the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether the court correctly applied those findings as a matter of law. State v. Jarman, 1998 MT 277, ¶ 8, 291 Mont. 391, ¶ 8, 967 P.2d 1099, ¶ 8 (citation omitted). To determine whether a finding is in error, this Court ascertains whether substantial evidence supports the finding, whether the district court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, and whether the Court is nevertheless left with a definite and firm conviction that the district court made a mistake. Jarman, ¶ 8 (citation omitted).

¶ 10 Appellants urge the Court to adopt a de novo standard of review for determinations of reasonable suspicion and cite Ornelas v. U.S (1996), 517 U.S. 690, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911, as authority. Appellants argue that questions encompassing issues of both law and fact warrant de novo review by this Court.

¶ 11 This Court has repeatedly stated that whether particularized or reasonable suspicion justifies an investigative stop is a question of fact that the district court determines from the totality of the circumstances confronting the officer at the time of the stop. State v. Herbenson, 2001 MT 75, ¶ 9, 305 Mont. 68, ¶ 9, 22 P.3d 1128, ¶ 9 (citing State v. Halvorson, 2000 MT 56, ¶ 9, 299 Mont. 1, ¶ 9, 997 P.2d 751, ¶ 9). While largely a question of fact, the evaluation may encompass legal conclusions, such as whether or not a particular act or omission violates the law. State v. Lafferty, 1998 MT 247, ¶ 10, 291 Mont. 157, ¶ 10, 967 P.2d 363, ¶ 10. Also, the legal standard of objective reasonableness is applied to determine whether the inferences drawn from the objective facts give rise to a particularized suspicion of wrong-doing.

¶ 12 We defer to the district courts on matters of fact-finding, and we will not disturb a finding of the trial court unless the determination is clearly erroneous. Interstate Production Credit Ass'n. of Great Falls v. DeSaye (1991), 250 Mont. 320, 324, 820 P.2d 1285, 1287-88

; State v. Cope (1991), 250 Mont. 387, 396, 819 P.2d 1280, 1286. The trial court is in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses with the benefit of live testimony, to become intimately familiar with the details of the case and to weigh the value of evidence. State v. Kirkaldie (1978), 179 Mont. 283, 289, 587 P.2d 1298, 1303; State v. Weaselboy, 1999 MT 274, ¶ 24, 296 Mont. 503, ¶ 24, 989 P.2d 836, ¶ 24 (citing State v. Doyle, 1998 MT 195, ¶ 18, 290 Mont. 287, ¶ 18, 963 P.2d 1255, ¶ 18). We will not disturb the district court's factual and credibility determinations on appeal. Doyle, ¶ 18 (citing State v. Ahmed (1996), 278 Mont. 200, 212, 924 P.2d 679, 686). When legal conclusions arise in the mix of the totality of the circumstances and when the court applies the law to its findings, our review of those matters of law is plenary. Lafferty, ¶ 10 (citing State v. Lee (1997), 282 Mont. 391, 393, 938 P.2d 637, 639). We hold that our bifurcated standard of review affords appropriate deference to the trial court's fact-finding role and responsibility, while providing this Court with the opportunity to review legal conclusions and the application of legal standards de novo.

DISCUSSION

¶ 13 Was the investigative stop supported...