| 
| State v. Reiner | | State of Montana v. Frank Frederick Reiner, No. 01-604, 2003 MT 243
On March 22, 2000, a bench trial was held in the Lake County Justice Court, Polson, Montana. Mr. Reiner was found guilty of misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol in violation of § 61-08-401, MCA. Mr. Reiner appealed his judgment and sentence to the Twentieth Judicial District Court for the reason that the officer had no legal justification for stopping him. The District Court found that the police officer was acting as a “community caretaker” and conducted a lawful “welfare check” and therefore had legal justification for the stop and search. The Court ultimately found Reiner guilty of the charged offense and issued the same judgment as Justice Court. Subsequently, Reiner appealed the District Court’s judgment.
While on appeal, the State filed a motion to have the matter remanded to District Court to determine whether or not there was an investigative stop and whether or not there was particularized suspicion to support such a stop. The Supreme Granted the State’s motion and on February 13, 2002 the District Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Denying Motion to Suppress. There, the District Court found that 1) the citizen report did not justify an “investigative stop;” 2) because Reiner’s vehicle was already stopped, the officer did not perform an “investigative stop;” and 3) no particularized suspicion was needed for the officer to stop and engage with Reiner because he was acting under his “community caretaker” responsibilities.
In reviewing the District Court’s order, the Supreme Court also found that the citizen’s report did not justify an “investigative stop.” The Supreme Court concluded that “a citizen informant’s opinion which is not supported by either the basis for such belief or by the officer’s personal observations cannot be sufficient to form a particularized suspicion.”
The Supreme Court also found that the officer was outside of his jurisdiction when he encountered and detained Reiner. The Supreme Court relied on State v. Williamson, 1998 MT 199, 290 Mont. 321, 965 P.2d 231 in that “[n]ot only did Finkle not have particularized suspicion; he did not have probable cause, which as an out-of-jurisdiction peace officer, he was required to have to instigate an investigative stop.”
In regards to the District Court’s second conclusion, the Supreme Court did not agree that because Reiner’s vehicle was already stopped, the officer did not form an “investigative stop.” The Supreme Court referred to § 42-2-101(71), MCA, in making its decision. The statute defines a stop as “the temporary detention of a person that results when a peace officer orders a person to remain in the peace officer’s presence.”
The Supreme Court rejected the District Court’s conclusion that no particularized suspicion was needed for the officer to stop and engage with Reiner because he was acting under his “community caretaker” responsibilities. The Supreme Court found that the officer did not stop Reiner out of concern for his well being, but rather because of the citizen’s DUI report and therefore his stop was not undertaken as a lawful community caretaking “welfare check.”
Because the officer lacked particularized suspicion, probable cause and performed an investigative stop rather than a “welfare check,” the Supreme Court reversed Reiner’s conviction and judgment. | | |
|
| |
 | | Montana Legal News |
| |
|
