D A 0 7

- 0 6 6 6

I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U

R T O F T H E S T

A T E O F M O N T

A N A

2 0 0 9 M T 2 2 1

S T A T E O F M O N T

A N A

,

P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l e e

,

v

.

D A R I N H U R L B E R T

,

D e f e n d a n t a n d A p p e l l a n t

.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of t he Fifth Judicial District,

I n a n d F o r t h e C o u

n t y o f J e f f e r s o n

, C a u s e N o

. D C

- 2 0 0 6

- 2 0 6 4

H o n o r a b l e L o r e n T

u c k e r

, P r e s i d i

n g J u d g e

C O U N S E L O F R E C O R D :

F o r A p p e l l a n t :

J a c k H

. M o r r i s

, J a r d i

n e

, M o r r i s & T r a n e l

, P L L C

, W h i

t e h a l l

, M o n t a n a

J a m e s B

. W h e e l i s ; H e l e n a

, M o n t a n a

F o r A p p e l l e e :

H o n

. S t e v e B u l l o c k

, M o n t a n a A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l

, C

. M a r

k F o w l e r

, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r

n e y G e n e r a l

, H e l e n a

, M o n t a n a

M a t t h e w J o h

n s o n

, J e f f e r s o n C o u n t

y A t t o r n e y

, B o u l d e r

, M o n t a n a

S u b m i t t e d o n B r i e f

s : O c t o b e r 1

, 2 0 0 8

D e c i d e d : J u n e 3 0

, 2 0 0 9

F i l e d :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C l e r k July 1 20092

J u s t i c e J a m e s C

. N e l s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t

.

¶ 1 D a r i n H u r l b e r t a

p p e a l s a j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l

D i s t r i c t

, J e f

f e r s o n County

, finding him gui lty of possession of dangerous drugs,

p o s s e s s i o n o f d r

u g p a r a p h e r n a

l i a

, r e c k l e s s d r i v i n g a n d s p e e d i n g

. W e a f f i r m

.

ISSUES

¶ 2 H u r l b e r t r a i s e s o n a p p e a l t w o m a i n i s s u e s a n d s e v e r a l s u b

- i s s u e s i n v

o l v i n g t h e

d e n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s

. W e h a v e r e s t a t e d t

h e s e i s s u e s f

o r c l a r i t y a s f

o l l o w s :

¶3 1. Whether the law enforcement officer’s continued questioning of Hurlbert

exceeded the scope of the stop.

¶ 4 2. Whether H u r l b e r t ’ s w i f e ’ s c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h t h e v e h i c l e w a s v

a l i d

.

¶ 5 3

. W

h e t h e r H u r l b e r t w a s p r o p e r l y a d v i s e d o f h i s M

i r a n d a r i g h t s

.

¶ 6 4. Whether Hurlbert ’ s c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h h i s b e l o n g i n g s w a s g i v

e n v o l u n t a r i l y

.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 7 O n t h e a f

t e r n o o n o f M a y 1 6

, 2 0 0 6

, H u r l b e r t w a s s t o p p e d f

o r s p e e d i n g b y M o n t a n a

H i g h w a y P a t r o l T r o o p e r J a y N e l s o n o n I n t e r s t a t e 9 0 n e a r W

h i t e h a l l

, M o n t a n a

. T r o o p e r

Nelson ’ s r a d a r c o n f

i r m e d t h a t H u r l b e r t w a s t r a v e l i n g 1 0 3 m

i l e s p e r h o u r

, m o r e t h a n 2 5

m i l e s p e r h o u r o v

e r t h e s p e e d l i m

i t i n t h a t a r e a

. W h e n T r o o p e r N e l s o n s t o p p e d H u r l b e r t

,

H u r l b e r t s t a

t e d t h a t h e t h o u g h t h e w a s o n l y d o i n g 9 0 m i l e s p e r h o u r

.

¶ 8 W h i l e h e w a s i s s u i n g a s p e e d i n g c i t a t i o n t o H u r l b e r t

, T r o o p e r N e l s o n n o t i c e d

s e v e r a l i n d i c a t o r s o f p o s s i b l e illegal activity in addition to the speeding. Trooper Nelson

later testified that Hurlbert was “nervous,” “definite ly shaking,” “sweating quite a bit,”

a n d t h a t H u r l b e r t “ w a s c o n s t a n

t l y m o v i n g a r o u n d

, v

e r y u n e a s y ; h e w o u l d n o t s i t s t i l l ; [ h e3

was] rapidly smoking a cigar ette ” and “he would open up his wal let and just stare at [it]

. ”

W h e n T r o o p e r N e l s o n a s k e d H u r l b e r t w h e r e h e w a s c o m

i n g f r o m

, H u r l b e r t s t a t e d h e h a d

b e e n v i s i t i n g h i s p a r e n t s i n B o z e m a n

, h o w e v e r

, H u r l b e r t c o u l d n o t p r

o v i d e a n a d d r e s s f

o r

h i s p a r e n t s ’ h o u s e

. B a s e d o n t h e s e i n i t i a l o b s e r v

a t i o n s

, T r o o p e r N e l s o n c a l l e d D e p u t y

D a n H a g g e r t y with the Jefferson County Sheriff ’ s O f f i c e t o r e q u e s t a s s i s t a n c e i n c a s e

T r o o p e r N e l s o n d e c i d e d t o s e a r c h the vehicle.

¶ 9 T r o o p e r N e l s o n a s k e d H u r l b e r t a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s a b o u t d r u g a c t i v i t y a n d

H u r l b e r t s t a

t e d t h e r e w e r e n o d r

u g s i n t h e v

e h i c l e

. W

h e n T r o o p e r N e l s o n a s k e d w h e t h e r

H u r l b e r t w o u l d c o n s e n t t o a s e a r c h of the vehicle, Hurlbert stated he would have to obtain

his wife ’s permission , as the vehicle belonged to her. ( The vehicle was indeed registered

i n t h e n a m e o f H u r l b e r t ’ s w i f e

. ) H u r l b e r t a

l s o i n s i s t e d t h a

t T r o o p e r N e l s o n w o u l d h a v e t o

obtai n a search warrant to search any of H u r l b e r t ’ s p e r s o n a

l b e l o n g i n g s t h a t w e r e i n t

h e

v e h i c l e

. T r o o p e r N e l s o n t h e n a s k e d H u r l b e r t w

h i c h i t e m s i n t h e v

e h i c l e b e l o n g

e d t o h i m

a n d H u r l b e r t i d e n t i f

i e d a s h i r t

, a c a m o

- colored fanny p ack and a radar detector

.

¶ 1 0 B y t h a t t i m e

, D e p u t y H a g g e r t y h a d a r r i v e d a n d h e a n d T r o o p e r N e l s o n h a d

H u r l b e r t e x i t t h e v

e h i c l e

. D e p u t y H a g g e r t y p a t t e d H u r l b e r t d o w n f o r w e a p o n s w

h ile

Trooper Nelson called Hurlbert’s wif e, using the phone number Hu rlbert h ad provided

him

. H u r l b e r t ’ s w i f

e g a v e T r o o p e r N e l s o n p e r m i s s i o n t o s e a r c h t

h e v e h i c l e

. T r o o p e r

N e l s o n a l s o asked Hurlbert’s wife if there was any prior drug use . S h e t o l d him that

Hurlbert had “prior drug activity.” Trooper Nelson then searched the veh icle, except for

H u r l b e r t ’ s b e l o n g

i n g s

, w h i c h w e r e s t i l l i n t h e v

e h i c l e

. T r o o p e r N e l s o n l a t e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t4

he did not touch Hurlbert’s belongings d u ring the search of the vehicle

— he “left them

exactly where they were.”

¶ 1 1 Due to a disability from a battl e with bone cancer, Hurlbert walked with a cane

.

T o accommodate Hurlbert’s disability , he was allowed to sit in Deputy Hagge r t y ’ s p a t r o l

c a r w h i l e T r o o p e r N e l s o n c o n d u c t e d t h e s e a r c h o f t h e v e h i c l e

. H u r l b e r t w a s n o t

h a n d c u f f e d a n d t h e d o o r t o t h e p a t r

o l c a r r e m a i n e d o p e n

. T r o o p e r N e l s o n d i d n o t f i n d

a n y t h i n g i l l e g

a l i n t h e s e a r c h o f t h e v

e h i c l e

. H o w e v e r

, D e p u t y H a g g e r t y

, w h o h a d b e e n

s t a n d i n g n e x t t o w

h e r e H u r l b e r

t w a s s i t t i n g

, l a t e r t e s t i f

i e d t h a t Hurlbert “spontaneously

admitted . . . there was a blue box which contained a spoon and a syringe in his camo

b a g

. ” D e p u t y H a g g e r t y c o n v e y e d t h i s i n f

o r m a t i o n t o T r o o p e r N e l s o n

.

¶ 1 2 B o t h o f

f i c e r s t e s t i f

i e d t h a t a f

t e r T r o o p e r N e l s o n c o m p l e t e d t h e s e a r c h o f t h e

v e h i c l e

, h e advised Hurlbert of his rights under Mira nda v. Arizona

, 3 8 4 U

. S

. 4 3 6

, 8 6

S

. C t

. 1 6 0 2 ( 1 9 6 6 )

. H u r l b e r t t h e n s t a t e d t h a

t h e u n d e r s t o o d h i s r i g

h t s

, d e c l i n e d c o u

n s e l

a n d a g r e e d t o a n s w e r q u e s t i o n s

. H u r l b e r t d i d n o t

, h o w e v

e r

, s i g n a n y f o r m

a c k n o w l e d g i n g h e w a s w a i v i n g h i s r i g h t s

. H u r l b e r

t d i d s i g n a f o r m g i v i n g h i s c o n s e n t t o

s e a r c h h i s p e r s o n a l b e l o n g i n g s

. H u r l b e r t a l s o v

e r b a l l y g a v e T r o o p e r N e l s o n c o n s e n t t o

s e a r c h h i s b e l o n g

i n g s

. I n t h e c a m o b a g

, Trooper Nelson discovered a blue me tal box

c o n t a i n i n g “ a c o u p l e s y r i n g e s

, a s p o o n

, v a r i o u s b a g g i e s

, a n d

. . . a w h i t e p o w d e r y

s u b s t a n c e i m

p r i n t e d o n t h e s p o o n a n d i n s o m e o f t h e b a g g i e s

. ” T r o o p e r N e l s o n

c o n d u c t e d a f i e l d t e s t o f t h e w

h i t e p o w d e r

. T h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s t e s t i n d i c a t e d i t c o n t a i n e d

m e t h a m p h e t a m i n e

. T r o o p e r N e l s o n s e i z e d t h e i t e m s a s e v i d e n c e

, p h o t o g r a p h e d t h e m a n d

a r r e s t e d H u r l b e r

t

.5

¶ 1 3 On May 24, 2006, t he State filed an Information charging Hurlbert with criminal

possession of dangerous drugs, a felony, in violation of § 45

- 9

- 102, MCA; criminal

possession of drug paraphernalia, a misdemeano r, in violation of § 45

- 10

- 103, MCA;

speeding, a misdemeanor, in violation of § 61

- 8

- 303, MCA; and reckless driving, a

misdemeanor, i n v

i o l a t i o n o f § 6 1

- 8

- 3 0 1

, M C A

. H u r l b e r t m o v e d t o s u p p r e s s t h e

e v i d e n c e s e i z e d d u r i n g t h e s t o p

, b u t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n ied H u r l b e r t ’ s m o t i o n

.

H u r l b e r t t h e n e n t e r e d a g u i l t y p l e a

, r e s e r v i n g h i s r i g h t t o a p p e a l t h e d e

n i a l o f h i s m o t i o n

t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e

.

¶ 1 4 O n S e p t e m

b e r 1 4

, 2 0 0 7

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d i t s F i n d i n g s

, J

u d g m e n t a n d

D e f e r r e d S e n t e n c e w

h e r e i n i t s e n t e

n c e d H u r l b e r t t o a t h r e e

- y e a r d e f

e r r e d i m p o s i t i o n o f

s e n t e n c e a l o n g w i t h 3 0 d a y s i n t h e J e f f e r s o n C o u n

t y J a i l a n d a f

i n e o f $ 5 0 0 o n t h e c h a r g

e

o f p o s s e s s i o n o f d a n g

e r o u s d r u g s ; s i x m o n t h s i n j a i l

, w i t h a l l b u t 3 0 d a y s s u s p e n d e d

, a n d

a f i n e o f $ 2 0 0 o n t h e c h a r g e o f p o s s e s s i o n o f d r

u g p a r a p h e r n a

l i a ; 3 0 d a y s i n j a i l a n d a

f i n e o f $ 2 0 0 o n t

h e r e c k l e s s d r i v i n g c h a r g e ; a n d a f i n e o f $ 1 0 0 o n t h e s p e e d i n g c h a r g e

.

T h e c o u r t a

l s o o r d e r e d t h a t t h e s e n

t e n c e s w e r e t o r

u n c o n c u r r e

n t l y a n d t h a t H u r

l b e r t

w o u l d b e g

i v e n c r e d i t f

o r t i m e s e r v e d

.

¶ 1 5 Hurlbert now appeal s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s j u d g

m e n t

.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 1 6 This Court reviews a district court’s denial o f a motion to suppress to determine

w h e t h e r t h e c o u r

t ’ s f i n d i n g s a r e c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s

. S t a t e v

. B i e b e r

, 2 0 0 7 M T 2 6 2

, ¶ 2 0

,

3 3 9 M o n t

. 3 0 9

, 1 7 0 P

. 3 d 4 4 4

. T o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a f

i n d i n g o f f

a c t i s c l e a r l y

e r r o n e o u s

, t h i s C o u r t a s c e r t a i n s w h e t h e r t h e f i n d i n g i s s u p p o r t e d b y s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e6

e v i d e n c e

, w

h e t h e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r

t m i s a p p r e h e n d e d t

h e e f f e c t o f t h e e v i d e n c e

, a n d

w h e t h e r t h e C o u r t i s n e v e r t h e l e s s l e f

t w i t h a d e f

i n i t e a n d f

i r m c o n v i c t i o n t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t

c o u r t m a d e a m

i s t a k e

. Bieber , ¶ 20. We further review a district court’s denial of a

motion to s uppress to determine whether that c o u r t ’ s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a n d a p p l i c a t i o n o f t

h e

l a w a r e c o r r e c t

. O u r r e v i e w i n t h a t r e g a r d i s p l e n a r y

. Bieber

, ¶ 2 0 ( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. W e t z e l

,

2 0 0 5 M T 1 5 4

, ¶ 1 0

, 3 2 7 M o n t

. 4 1 3

, 1 1 4 P

. 3 d 2 6 9 )

.

I s s u e 1

.

¶17 Whether the law enforcement officer’s continued questioning of Hurlbert exceeded

the sc ope of the stop.

¶ 1 8 A f t e r g i v i n g H u r l b e r t a c i t a t i o n f o r s p e e d i n g

, T r o o p e r N e l s o n c o n t i n u e d t o

q u e s t i o n H u r

l b e r t a b o u t w h e t h e r h e h a d a

n y i l l e g a l d r u g s i n t h e v

e h i c l e

. H u r l b e r t

c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e w a s n o b a s i s t o s u p p o r t t h i s i n q u i r y a n d t h a t a l l e v i d e n c e s e i z e d i n t h e

t r a f f i c s t o p w a s i l l e g

a l l y o b t a i n e d a n d m

u s t b e s u p p r e s s e d b e c a u s e T r o o p e r N e l s o n ’ s

c o n t i n u e d q u e s t i o n i n g e x c e e d e d t h e s c o p e o f t h e s t o p

. T h e S t a t e a r g u e s

, h o w e v

e r

, t h a t

p o l i c e / m o t o r i s t e n c o u n

t e r s o c c u r r i n g a f

t e r t h e p u r

p o s e f o r t h e l a w f

u l s t o p h a s c o n c l u d e d

o r i s a b o u t t o c o n c l u d e a r e n o t p e r s e u n l a w f u l

.

¶ 1 9 T h e F o u r

t h A m e n d m e n t t o t h e U

n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u

t i o n a n d A

r t i c l e I I

, S e c t i o n

1 1 o f t h e M o n t a

n a C o n s t i t u

t i o n p r o t e c t i n d i v i d u a l s f

r o m u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s a n d

s e i z u r e s

. M o r e o v

e r

, w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h e s a r e p e r s e u n r e a s o n a b l e

, s u b j e c t o n l y t o a f

e w

c a r e f u l l y d r a w n e x c e p t i o n s

. State v. Clark

, 2 0 0 8 M T 4 1 9

, ¶ 2 2

, 3 4 7 M o n t

. 3 5 4

, 1 9 8 P

. 3 d

8 0 9 ( c i t i n g Bieber

, ¶ 2 9 )

.7

¶ 2 0 W h e n a l a w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f i c e r s e i z e s a p e r s o n

, s u c h a s i n a b r i e f i n v e s t i g a t o r y

s t o p o f a v e h i c l e

, t h e r i g h t a g a i n s t u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s a n d s e i z u r e s a p p l i e s

. State v.

Case

, 2 0 0 7 M T 1 6 1

, ¶ 2 1

, 3 3 8 M o n t

. 8 7

, 1 6 2 P

. 3 d 8 4 9 ( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. R o b e r t s , 1999 MT

59

, ¶ 1 2

, 2 9 3 M o n t

. 4 7 6

, 9 7 7 P

. 2 d 9 7 4 )

. H o w e v e r

, t h i s C o u r t r e c o g

n i z e s a n e x c e p t i o n t o

t h e g e n e r a l w a r r a n t r e q u i r e m e n t p e r m i t t i n g a l i m i t e d a n d r e a s o n a b l e i n v e s t i g a t i o n w i t h o u

t

p r o b a b l e c a u s e

, w

h e r e t h e S t a

t e c a n s h o w c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t c r e a t e a p a r t i c u l a r i z e d

s u s p i c i o n t h a t t h e p e r s o n i s o r h a s b e e n e n g a g e d i n w r o n g d o i n g o r w a s a w i t n e s s t o

c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y

. Case

, ¶ 2 1 ( c i t i n g Roberts , ¶¶ 12

- 13).

¶ 2 1 I n t h i s c a s e

, T r o o p e r N e l s o n c l e a r l y h a d p a r t i c u l a r i z e d s u s p i c i o n f

o r t h e i n i t i a l

t r a f f i c s t o p a s H u r l b e r t w a s e x c e e d i n g t h e s p e e d l i m i t

. See §§ 46

- 5

- 401 and 61

- 8

- 303,

MCA. Neverth eless, “ [ a ] s t o p a u t h o r i z e d b y 4 6

- 5

- 4 0 1 o r 4 6

- 6

- 4 1 1 m a y n o t l a s t l o n g e r

than is necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. ” S e c t i o n 4 6

- 5

- 4 0 3

, M C A

.

H o w e v e r

, i f a d d i t i o n a l o b

j e c t i v e d a t a o f w

r o n g d o i n g e x i s t s

, t h e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n

m a y g i v e r i s e t o f

u r t h e r s u s p i c i o n s a n d e n l a r g e t h e s c o p e o f t h e i n v

e s t i g a t i o n

. Case

, ¶ 3 4

( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. N

e l s o n , 2004 MT 310, ¶ 20, 323 Mont. 510, 101 P.3d 261).

¶ 2 2 A t t h e h e a r i n g o n H u r l b e r t ’ s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s

, t h e r e w a s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e

p r e s e n t e d o f o b

j e c t i v e d a t a f r o m w h i c h T r o o p e r N e l s o n c o u l d m a k e c e r t a i n i n f e r e n c e s o f

w r o n g d o i n g

. F o r e x a m

p l e

, T r o o p e r N e l s o n n o t i c e d t h a t H u r l b e r t w a s n e r v

o u s

, s h a k i n g

,

v e r y u n e a s y

, a n d c o n s t a n t l y m o v i n g a r o u n d

. T r o o p e r N e l s o n a l s o n o t i c e d t h a t H u r l b e r t

w a s s w e a t i n g q u i t e a b i t ; h e w o u l d n o t s i t s t i l l ; h e w a s r a p i d l y s m o k i n g a c i g a r e t t e ; a n d h e

w o u l d o p e

n u p h i s w a l l e t a n d j u s t s t a r e a t i t

. W h e n T r o o p e r N e l s o n a s k e d H u r l b e r t w h e r e8

he was coming from, Hurlbert stated that he had been visiting his parents in Bozeman,

however, H urlbert could not provide an address for his parents’ house.

¶ 2 3 Consequently, w e hold that w hile the purpose of the traffic stop had been

e f f e c t u a t e d

, T r o o p e r N e l s o n ’ s o b s e r v a t i o n s g a v e r i s e t o f u r t h e r s u s p i c i o n s t h a t s e r v e d t o

p r o p e r l y e n l a r g e t h e s c o p e o f t h e i n v

e s t i g a t i o n

.

Issue 2.

¶ 2 4 W h e t h e r H u r l b e r t ’ s w i f e ’ s c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h t h e v e h i c l e w a s v a l i d

.

¶ 2 5 H u r l b e r t a r g

u e s t h a t b e c a u s e h e l a w f u l l y p o s s e s s e d t h e v

e h i c l e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e

s t o p

, h e h a d a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v

a c y i n i t a n d w a s t h u s e n t i t l e d t o p r o t e c t i o n

f r o m a n y u n l a w f

u l s e a r c h e s a n d s e i z u r e s

. H e a l s o m a i n t a i n s t h a t h i s w i f e ’ s c o n s e n t t o

s e a r c h t h e v

e h i c l e w a s n o t v

a l i d b e c a u s e s h e w a s n o t i n p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e v e h i c l e a t t h e

time of the stop and because she was coerced into consenting.

¶ 2 6 T h e S t a t e c o u

n t e r s t h a t H u r l b e r t d i d n o t m a k e a n y c o l o r a b l e c l a i m o f p r e j u d i c e

f r o m t h e s e a r c h o f t h e v

e h i c l e a n d

, e v

e n i f h e h a d

, H u r l b e r t d i d n o t h a v e a p o s s e s s o r y

interest in the vehicle that superseded his wife’s right as the owner of the vehicle to assert

actual authority and consent to a search.

¶ 2 7 H u r l b e r t d o e s n o t d e m o n s t r a t e h e w a s p r e j u d i c e d i n a

n y w a y f r o m t h e s e a r c h o f

t h e v e h i c l e a s t h e s e a r c h o f t

h e v e h i c l e i t s e l f r e v

e a l e d n o t h i n g u n l a w f

u l

. N o c o n t r a

b a n d

w a s f o u n d i n t h e v

e h i c l e

, a n d H u r l b e r

t d o e s n o t p r e s e n t a n y c o n n e c t i o n b e t w e e n h i s

a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e s e a r c h o f t h e v e h i c l e w a s i l l e g

a l a n d h i s a r g u m e n t s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e

v o l u n t a r i n e s s o f h i s c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h h i s p e r s o n a l b e l o n g i n g s

. “ A c a u s e m a y n o t b e

r e v e r s e d b y r e a s o n o f a n y e r r o r c o m m i t t e d b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t a g a i n s t t h e c o n v

i c t e d p e r s o n9

u n l e s s t h e r e c o r

d s h o w s t h a t t

h e e r r o r w a s p r e

j u d i c i a l

. ” S e c t i o n 4 6

- 2 0

- 7 0 1 ( 1 )

, M C A

.

H u r l b e r t h a s m a d e n o s u c h s h o w i n g h e r e

.

¶ 2 8 M o r e o v

e r

, T r o o p e r N e l s o n t e s t i f

i e d t h a t w

h e n h e a s k e d H u r l b e r

t f o r p e r m i s s i o n t o

s e a r c h t h e v

e h i c l e

, H u r l b e r t s t a t e d t h a t T r o o p e r N e l s o n w o u l d h a v e t o a s k h i s w i f

e

b e c a u s e t h e v e h i c l e b e l o n g

e d t o h e r

. W e h a v

e r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a

t w e w i l l n o t p u

t a t r i a l

c o u r t i n e r r o r f

o r a r u l i n g o r p r o c e d u r e i n w

h i c h a p a r t y

acquiesced or participated

. S t a t e

v

. C y b u l s k i

, 2 0 0 9 M T 7 0

, ¶ 6 1

, 3 4 9 M o n t

. 4 2 9

, 2 0 4 P

. 3 d 7 ( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. C l a y

, 1998 MT

2 4 4

, ¶ 2 4

, 2 9 1 M o n

t

. 1 4 7

, 9 6 7 P

. 2 d 3 7 0 ; M

a t t e r o f R

. B

. O

. , 2 7 7 M o n t

. 2 7 2

, 2 8 3

, 9 2 1 P

. 2 d

2 6 8

, 2 7 5 ( 1 9 9 6 ) ; I

n r e P e d e r s e n

, 261 Mont. 284, 287, 862 P.2d 411, 413 ( 1993)).

¶ 2 9 A c c o r d i n g

l y

, w e h o l d t

h a t H u r l b e r

t w a i v e d h i s r i g h t t o o b j e c t t o t h e s e a r c h o f t h e

v e h i c l e w h e n h e d i s c l a i m e d t h a t h e h a d a u t h o r i t y t o g

r a n t p e r m i s s i o n t o s e a r c h i t

, a n d h e

t h e r e b y c o n c e d e d t

h a t h e d i d n o t h a v

e a r e a s o n a b l e e x

p e c t a t i o n o f p r i v

a c y i n t h e v

e h i c l e

.

I s s u e 3

.

¶ 3 0 W h e t h e r H u r l b e r t w a s p r o p e r l y a d v i s e d o f h i s M i r a n d a r i g h t s

.

¶ 3 1 I n t h i s c a s e

, t h e r e a r e t w o s e p a r a t e i n s t a n c e s w h e n H u r l b e r t w a s q u e s t i o n e d b y

T r o o p e r N e l s o n

, e i t h e r o f w h i c h c o u l d r a i s e t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r H u r l b e r t w a s p r o p e r l y

a d v i s e d o f h i s M

i r a n d a r i g h t s

. T h e f

i r s t i n s t a n c e w a s i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r T r o o p e r N e l s o n

h a n d e d H u r l b e r

t t h e c i t a t i o n f o r s p e e d i n g a n d T r o o p e r N e l s o n question ed Hurlbert abo ut

illegal drug activity a n d r e q u e s t e d H u r l b e r t ’ s c o n s e n

t t o s e a r c h t h e v

e h i c l e

. T h e s e c o n d

i n s t a n c e w a s a f

t e r T r o o p e r N e l s o n f

i n i s h e d s e a r c h i n g the vehicle and he requested

Hurlbert ’s c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h H u r l b e r t ’ s p e r s o n a

l b e l o n g i n g s

.10

¶ 3 2 H u r l b e r t c l a i m s h e w a s i n c u s t o d y t h e m i n u t e h e w a s s t o p p e d a n d t h a t h e s h o u l d

h a v e b e e n g i v

e n h i s M i r a n d a warnings when Trooper Nelson first began to question him

a n d r e q u e s t e d H u r l b e r

t ’ s c o n s e n

t t o s e a r c h t h e v

e h i c l e

. W e d i s a g

r e e

.

¶ 3 3 T h e F i f

t h A m e n d m e n t t o t

h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n a n d A r t i c l e I I

, S e c t i o n 2 5

o f t h e M o n

t a n a C o n s t i t u

t i o n p r o v i d e t h a t i n d i v

i d u a l s h a v

e t h e r i g h t n o t t o i n c r i m

i n a t e

t h e m s e l v e s

. S t a t e v

. G i t t e n s , 2008 M T 5 5

, ¶ 1 2

, 3 4 1 M o n t

. 4 5 0

, 1 7 8 P

. 3 d 9 1 ( c i t i n g In re

Z.M.

, 2 0 0 7 M T 1 2 2

, ¶ 3 9

, 3 3 7 M o n t

. 2 7 8

, 1 6 0 P

. 3 d 4 9 0 )

. T h i s r i g h t a g a i n s t

s e l f

- i n c r i m i n a t i o n a p p l i e s t o b a r t h e u s e o f s t a t e ments obtained from a custodial

i n t e r r o g a t i o n “ u n l e s s t h e d e f

e n d a n t i s w a r n e d

, p r i o r t o q u e s t i o n i n g

, t h a t h e h a s a r i g h t t o

r e m a i n s i l e n t

, t h a

t a n y s t a t e m e n t h e d o e s m a k e m a y b e u s e d a s e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t h i m

, a n d

t h a t h e h a s t h e r i g

h t t o t h e p r e s e n c e o f a n a t t o r n e y

. ” 1 State v. Lacey

, 2 0 0 9 M T 6 2

, ¶ 5 9

,

3 4 9 M o n t

. 3 7 1

, 2 0 4 P

. 3 d 1 1 9 2 ( c i t i n g S t a t e v. Olson

, 2 0 0 3 M T 6 1

, ¶ 1 3

, 3 1 4 M o n t

. 4 0 2

,

6 6 P

. 3 d 2 9 7 ; M

i r a n d a , 384 U .S. at 444 , 86 S. Ct. at 1612 ). “ P erson s are considered to be

‘ i n c u s t o d y ’ a n d e n t i t l e d t o Mira nda w a r n i n g s ‘ i f t h e y h a v e b e e n d e p r i v

e d o f t h e i r

f r e e d o m o f a c t i o n i n a n y s i g n i f i c a n t w a y o r t h e i r f

r e e d o m o f a c t i o n h a s b e e n c u r t a i l e d t o a

d e g r e e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a f

o r m a l a r r e s t

. ’ ” Lacey , ¶ 59 (quoting State v. Munson , 2007

M T 2 2 2

, ¶ 2 1

, 3 3 9 M o n

t

. 6 8

, 1 6 9 P

. 3 d 3 6 4 )

. I f a c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n h a s t a k e n p l a c e

a n d t h e p e r s o n h a s b e e n p r

o p e r l y i n f o r m e d o f t h e i r Miranda rights, they may waive those

1 Miranda also requires that the person be advised that “if he cannot afford an attorney

o n e w i l l b e a p p o i n

t e d f o r h i m p r i o r t o a n y q u e s t i o n i n g i f h e s o d e s i r e s

. ” State v.

Morrisey

, 2 0 0 9 M T 2 0 1

, ¶ 2 8

, 3 5 1 M o n t

. 1 4 4

,

_ _ _ P

. 3 d

_ _ _ ( c i t i n g M

i r a n d a

, 3 8 4 U

. S

. a t

4 7 9

, 8 6 S

. C t

. a

t 1 6 3 0 )

.11

r i g h t s i f t h e w a i v

e r i s m a d e v

o l u n t a r i l y

, k

n o w i n g l y

, a n d i n t e l l i g

e n t l y

. Lacey

, ¶ 6 0 ( c i t i n g

Gittens , ¶ 14 )

.

¶ 3 4 W e c o n c l u d e t h a

t H u r l b e r t w a s n o t e

n t i t l e d t o a M

i r a n d a w a r n i n g p r i o r t o b e i n g

a s k e d f o r c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h t h e v e h i c l e a s H u r l b e r t w a s n o t i n c u s t o d y a t t h a t t i m e

. T h i s

C o u r t h a s r e p e a t e d l y h e l d t h a t

“ l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f i c e r s n e e d n o t a d m

i n i s t e r M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s t o

s u s p e c t s d u r i n g b r i e f i n v e s t i g a t i v e e n c o u n t e r s e v

e n i f t h o s e e n c o u n

t e r s a r e

s o m e w h a t c o e r c i v

e

. M o r e o v

e r

, w e h a v

e s t a t e d t h a

t a n i n t e r r o g a t i o n i s n o t

c u s t o d i a l u n l e s s t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t r e s t r i c t i o n o f p e r s o n a l l i b e r t y s i m i l a r

to an arr est . . . and even temporary confinement as a safety precaution does

n o t r e n d e r t

h e d e t e n t i o n ‘ c u s t o d i a l ’ f

o r Miranda p u r

p o s e s

. . . . ”

State v. Elison

, 2 0 0 0 M T 2 8 8

, ¶ 2 7

, 3 0 2 M o n t

. 2 2 8

, 1 4 P

. 3 d 4 5 6 ( q u o t i n g S t a t e v

.

D a w s o n

, 1 9 9 9 M T 1 7 1

, ¶ 3 5

, 2 9 5 M o n t

. 2 1 2

, 9 8 3 P

. 2 d 9 1 6 )

. I n E l i s o n , we cited with

a p p r o v a l t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s h o l d i n g i n B e r k e m e r v

. M

c C a r t y , 468 U.S.

420, 104 S. Ct. 3138 (1984), that “statements made by a defendant in response to an

o f f i c e r ’ s r o a d s i d e q u e s t i o n i n g d i d n o t r e q u i r e w a r n i n g s o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s b e c a u s e o f

t h e b r e v i t y o f q u e s t i o n i n g a n d i t s p u b l i c s e t t i n g

, e v e n t h o u g h f e w m o t o r i s t s w o u l d f

e e l

f r e e t o leave.” 2 Elison , ¶ 29 (citing Berkemer , 468 U.S. at 436

- 39, 104 S. Ct. at 3148

- 49).

Thus, “an officer may ask the detainee a moderate number of questions to determine the

d e t a i n e e ’ s i d e n t i t y a n d t o t r y t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n c o n f

i r m i n g o r d i s p e l l i n g t h e o f

f i c e r ’ s

s u s p i c i o n s b e f

o r e t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f Miranda a t t a c h

. ” Elison

, ¶ 3 2 ( c i t i n g B e r k e m e r

,

4 6 8 U

. S

. a t 4 3 9

, 1 0 4 S

. C t

. a t 3 1 5 0 )

.

2 H u r l b e r t r a i s e d n o c h a l l e n g

e t o t h i s t e s t

.12

¶ 3 5 I n a d d i t i o n

, t h e r e i s n o r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t M i r a n d a w a r n i n g s b e g i v

e n p r i o r t o a

r e q u e s t f o r c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h

. Clark

, ¶ 2 2 ( c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. C o n s e n t t o s e a r c h i s n o t a n

i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t ; i t i s n o t t e s t i m o n i a l o r c o m m u n i c a t i v e i n n a t u r e

, t

h u s i t i s n o t

p r o t e c t e d b y t h e F i f

t h A m e n d m e n t

. U

n i t e d S t a t e s v

. L e m o n , 550 F.2d 467, 472 (9th Cir.

1977).

¶ 3 6 H e r e

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t H u r l b e r t w a s i n c u s t o d y a f t e r T r o o p e r

N e l s o n t o l d h i m t o l e a v

e h i s k e y s o n t h e d a s h b o a r d o f t h e c a r a n d e x i t h i s v

e h i c l e s o t h a t

T r o o p e r N e l s o n c o u l d s e a r c h i t

. A l t h o u g h t h e S t a t e h a d a r g

u e d t h a t H u r l b e r t w a s s t i l l

f r e e t o l e a v

e a t t h a t p o i n t b e c a u s e h e w a s n o t i n r e s t r a i n t s a n d h e w a s s i t t i n g i n o n e o f t h e

p a t r o l c a r s w i t h t h e d o o r o p e n

, w e a g r e e w i t h t

h e D i s t r i c t C o u r

t t h a t H u r l b e r t w a s

e f f e c t i v e l y i n c u s t o d y a t t h a t t i m e

. Hurlbert had limited mobility because of his

disability

— h e c o u l d o n l y w a l k a s h o r t d i s t a n c e a n d h e h a d t o u s e a c a

n e

. T h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t p o i n

t e d o u t that it was absurd to su ggest “that an obviously disabled indivi dual

hike down the interstate or t h r o u g h t h e b o r r o w p i t w i t h o u t h i s v

e h i c l e

. . . . ”

¶ 3 7 N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g

, n o i n t e r r o g a t i o n t o o k p l a c e f

r o m t h e t i m e H u r l b e r t e x i t e d t h e

v e h i c l e u n t i l a f

t e r T r o o p e r N e l s o n f

i n i s h e d s e a r c h i n g i t

. T r o o p e r N e l s o n w a s t o o b u s y

s e a r c h i n g t h e v

e h i c l e a n d D e p u

t y H a g g e r t y w a s s i m

p l y s t a n d i n g b y k e e p i n g a n e y e o n

H u r l b e r t

. I

t w a s w h i l e T r o o p e r N e l s o n w a s s e a r c h i n g t h e v e h i c l e t h a t H u r l b e r

t

s p o n t a n e o u s l y s t a t e d t o D e p u

t y H a g g e r t y t h a t w

h a t T r o o p e r N elson was looking for was

i n H u r l b e r t ’ s c a m o b a g

. T h i s s t a t e m e n t w a s m a d e v o l u n t a r i l y a n d n o t i n r e s p o n s e t o

q u e s t i o n i n g b y e i t h e r o f f i c e r

. T h e S t a t e q u i t e c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s o u t t h a t n o Miranda

w a r n i n g s a r e r e q u i r e d b e f o r e a d e f e n d a n t s p o n t a n e o u s l y u

t t e r s i n c r i m

i n a t i n g i n f

o r m a t i o n

.13

¶ 3 8 A s t o T r o o p e r N e l s o n ’ s q u e s t i o n i n g H u r l b e r t a f t e r T r o o p e r N e l s o n f

i n i s h e d

s e a r c h i n g t h e v

e h i c l e

, b o t

h T r o o p e r N e l s o n a n d D e p u t y H a g g e r t y t e s t i f

i e d t h a t T r o o p e r

N e l s o n a d v

i s e d H u r l b e r t o f h i s M

i r a n d a rights bef

ore asking Hurlbert any questions

about Hurlbert’s spontaneous statement to Deputy Ha ggerty and before asking for

Hurlbert ’ s c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h h i s p e r s o n a l b e l o n g i n g s

. H u r l b e r t

, h o w e v

e r

, d e n i e d t

h a t h e

w a s e v e r a d v i s e d o f h i s M i r a n d a rights.

¶ 3 9 A f t e r h e a r i n g H u r l b e r t ’ s t e s t i m o n y a t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g a l o n g w i t h t h e

t e s t i m o n y f

r o m b o t h l a w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f i c e r s

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d that Trooper

N e l s o n a n d D e p u

t y H a g g e r t y w e r e “ f

o r t h r i g h t

, a r t i c u l a t e

, c a r e f

u l

, d e t a i l e d

, a

n d s u p p o r t e d

t h e i r t e s t i m o n y b y r e f

e r e n c e t o c o n t e m

p o r a n e o u s l y c r e a

t e d n o t e s

. T h e i r r e s p e c t i v e

reports of the facts were consistent. Their testimony was credible.” As to Hurlbert’s

t e s t i m o n y

, t h e c o u r t s t a t e d : “ I n c o n t r a s t

, [ t h e c o u r t ] a

l s o o b s e r v

e d t h e p o s t u r e

, d e m e a n o r

,

f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n

, t o n e o f v

o i c e

, d e l i v

e r y

, a n d c o m

p l e t e n e s s o f r e s p o n s e s b y [ H u r l b e r t ]

.

All of those indicators in sum demonstrate that [Hurlbert] is not particularly credible.”

¶ 4 0 T h e w e i g

h t o f e v i d e n c e a n d t

h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s a r e e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h i n t h e

p r o v i n c e o f t h e t r i e r o f f

a c t

, a n d t h i s C o u r t d o e s n o t r e w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e o r t h e

c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s

. State v. Pi t zer

, 2 0 0 2 M T 8 2

, ¶ 1 3

, 3 0 9 M o n t

. 2 8 5

, 4 6 P

. 3 d 5 8 2

( c i t i n g S t a t e v

. P

i e r c e , 255 Mont. 378, 383, 842 P.2d 344, 347 (1992))

.

“ I t i s n o t t h i s C o u r

t ' s f u n c t i o n

, o n a p p e a l

, t o r e w e i g h c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e o r

s u b s t i t u t e o u r e v

a l u a t i o n o f t h e e v

i d e n c e f o r t h a t o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t

. W e

d e f e r t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g c o n f l i c t i n g t e s t i m o n y b e c a u s e

w e r e c o g n i z e t h a t t

h e c o u r t h a d t h e b e n e f i t o f o b s e r v i n g t h e d e m e a n o r o f

w i t n e s s e s a n d r e n d e r i n g a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h o s e

witnesses. ”14

Gittens

, ¶ 2 7 ( q u o t i n g B i e b e r

, ¶ 23 ).

¶ 4 1 Therefore, we defer to the District Court's determination that both Trooper

Nelson’s and Deputy Haggerty’s testimony w a s m o r e c r e d i b l e t h a n H u r l b e r t ’ s t e s t i m o n y

,

a n d w e h o l d t

h a t H u r l b e r t w a s p r o p e r l y a d v i s e d o f h i s M

i r a n d a r i g h t s p r i o r t o a n y

c u s t o d i a l i n

t e r r o g a t i o n b y l a w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f i c e r s

.

Issue 4.

¶ 4 2 Whether Hurlbert’s consent to search his belongings was given voluntarily.

¶ 4 3 T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t H u r l b e r t f

r e e l y a n d v

o l u n t a r i l y g a v e h i s

c o n s e n t b a s e d o n t h e f

o l l o w i n g f

a c t s : H u r l b e r t w a s g

i v e n a M i r a n d a w a r n i n g b e f

o r e h e

w a s a s k e d f

o r c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h h i s p e r s o n a l b e l o n g i n g s ; h e v

o l u n t e e r e d t o a

n s w e r

q u e s t i o n s ; h e w a s g i v

e n a w r i t t e n c o n s e n t f

o r m w h i c h h e s i g

n e d ; a n d h e a d m i t t e d t o

r e a d i n g t h e b o t

t o m p o r t i o n o f t h e f

o r m c o n t a i n i n g c r i t i c a l l a n g u a g e a f f i r m i n g h i s f r e e a n d

v o l u n t a r y c o n s e n

t

. E v e n t h o u g h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f

o u n d t h a t t h e r e i s a l w a y s a n i n h e r e n t

r i s k o f c o e r c i o n i n a s i t u a t i o n w h e r e a n i n d i v

i d u a l i s n o t f

r e e t o g o

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

c o n c l u d e d t h a

t t h e o t h e r f

a c t s t a k e n t o g

e t h e r d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t H u r l b e r t f r e e l y a n d

voluntarily consented to the search of his personal belongings. The District Court also

determined that Hurlbert’s claim that he didn’t know what he had signed was “ [ t ] o avoid

t h e i m p a c t o f h i s s i g

n a t u r e o n t h e c o n s e n t f

o r m ” a n d t h a t h i s t e s t i m o n y i s “ i n c o n s i s t e n t

w i t h h i s a c k

n o w l e d g m e n t t h a t h e m a y r e f u s e e n t i r e l y o r

sto p at anytime.”

¶ 4 4 Hurlbert contends that his consent to search his personal belongings was not valid

because it was not given freely and voluntarily

. H u r l b e r t c l a i m s h e “ e v e n t u a l l y c o n s e n t e d

t o t h e s e a r c h o f h i s p e r s o n a l b e l o n g i n g [ s ]

, b e c a u s e h e p e r c e i v e d t h a t h e h a d n o o t

h e r15

c h o i c e

, a n d w a s b e i n g f

o r c e d t o d o s o

. ” H e a l s o c l a i m s t h a t h e s i g n e d t h e p e r m

i s s i o n t o

s e a r c h f o r m a f t e r the search thinking that it was actually an inventory of what was in the

vehicle . We conclude that Hurlbert’s contentions are d isingenuous and we agree with the

D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d e t e r m

i n a t i o n t h a t H u r l b e r t f

r e e l y a n d v

o l u n t a r i l y g

a v e h i s c o n s e n t t o

s e a r c h h i s p e r s o n a l b e l o n g i n g s

.

¶ 4 5 A s n o t e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s O p i n i o n

, w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h e s a r e p e r s e u n r e a s o n a b l e

,

s u b j e c t o n l y t o a f

e w c a r e f u l l y d r a w n e x c e p t i o n s

. C l a r k

, ¶ 2 2 ( c i t i n g B i e b e r

, ¶ 29 ). “One

such exception ‘ arises when a citizen has knowledgeably and voluntarily consented to a

search. ’ ” Clark

, ¶ 2 2 ( q u o t i n g Bieber

, ¶ 2 9 )

. M o r e o v e r

, t h e p r o s e c u

t i o n c a r r i e s t h e

b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t c o n s e n t t o a w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h w a s f r e e l y a n d v

o l u n t a r i l y

g i v e n a n d w a s u n c o n

t a m i n a t e d b y a n y e x

p r e s s o r i m

p l i e d c o e r c i o n

. Munson

, ¶ 5 0 ( c i t i n g

State v. Olson

, 2 0 0 2 M T 2 1 1

, ¶ 2 0

, 3 1 1 M o n t

. 2 7 0

, 5 5 P

. 3 d 9 3 5 ; S t a t e v

. R u s h t

o n , 264

Mont. 2 48, 257

- 58, 870 P.2d 1355, 1361 (1994)).

¶ 4 6 This Court has adopted th e United States S u p r e m e C o u r t ’ s t o t a l i t y

- o f

- t h e

c i r c u m s t a n c e s t e s t f

o r d e t e r m i n i n g w

h e t h e r c o n s e n

t w a s g i v e n f r e e l y

, v o l u n t a r i l y a n d

w i t h o u t d u r e s s o r c o e r c i o n

. M unson

, ¶ 5 1 ( c i t i n g W

e t z e l

, ¶ 1 6 ; R u s h t

o n

, 2 6 4 M o n t

. a

t

2 5 7

- 5 8

, 8 7 0 P

. 2 d a t 1 3 6 1 ; S c h n e c k l o t h v

. B u s t a m o n t e

, 4 1 2 U

. S

. 2 1 8

, 2 2 6

, 2 2 7

, 2 4 8

- 4 9

, 9 3

S

. C t

. 2 0 4 1

, 2 0 4 7

, 2 0 4 8

, 2 0 5 9 ( 1 9 7 3 ) )

. A n u m b e r o f q u e s t i o n s a r e p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s

i n q u i r y

, s u c h a s w

h e t h e r t h e y w e r e i n c u s t o d y o r u n d e r a r r e s t a t t h e t i m e c o n s e n t w a s

r e q u e s t e d ; w

h e t h e r c o n s e n t w a s s o u g

h t a f t e r t h e s e a r c h h a d a l r e a d y b e e n c o n d u c t e d ;

w h e t h e r t h e y w e r e e x

p r e s s l y i n f

o r m e d t h a t t h e y h a d t h e r i g h t n o t t o c o n s e n t t o t

h e s e a r c h ;

w h e t h e r t h e y w e r e t o l d t h a

t a s e a r c h w a r r a n t c o u l d b e o b t a i n e d ; w h e t h e r t h e y w e r e16

a d v i s e d o f t h e i r c o n s t i t

u t i o n a l r i g h t s ; a n d w

h e t h e r t h e y w e r e t

h r e a t e n e d o r c o e r c e d i n a n y

m a n n e r

. Munson

, ¶ 5 1 ( c i t i n g Wetzel

, ¶ 1 7 ; S c h n e c k l o t h

, 4 1 2 U

. S

. a

t 2 2 6

, 9 3 S

. C t

. a

t

2 0 4 7 ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v

. P

a t a y a n S o r i a n o

, 3 6 1 F

. 3 d 4 9 4

, 5 0 2 ( 9 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 4 ) )

. A l s o

p e r t i n e n t t o t h e i n q u i r y i s i n f

o r m a t i o n r e g

a r d i n g t h e r e p e a t e d a n d p r o l o n g e d n a t u r e o f t h e

q u e s t i o n i n g

, a n d t h e i r a g

e

, e d u c a t i o n

, a n d i n t e l l i g

e n c e

. Munson , ¶ 51.

¶ 4 7 One factor in this totality

- of

- the

- circumstances test is w hethe r the accused were

a d v i s e d o f t h e i r M

i r a n d a r i g h t s

. H o w e v

e r

, t h e r e i s n o r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t M i r a n d a

w a r n i n g s b e g

i v e n p r i o r t o a r e q

u e s t f o r c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h

. Clark

, ¶ 2 2

. I n t h e e n d

, t h e

d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w

h e t h e r c o n s e n t w a s g

i v e n f r e e l y

, v o l u n t a r i l y

, a n d w i t h o u t d u r e s s o r

c o e r c i o n d e

p e n d s o n t h e t o t a

l i t y o f a l l t

h e s u r r o u n d i n g f

a c t s

, a n d n o s i n g

l e f a c t i s

d i s p o s i t i v e

. Munson

, ¶ 5 1 ( c i t i n g State v. Copelton , 2006 MT 182, ¶ 19 , 333 Mont. 91,

140 P.3d 1074)

.

¶ 4 8 The following facts support the District Co urt’s determination that Hurlbert’s

consent was given voluntarily . While sitting in the back of Deputy H a g g e r t y ’ s p a t r o l c a r

,

H u r l b e r t s p o n t a

n e o u s l y a d m

i t t e d t o D e p u t y H a g g

e r t y t h a t t h e r e w a s a b l u e b o x

, w h i c h

c o n t a i n e d a s p o o n a

n d a s y r i n g e

, i n h i s c a m o b a g

. B a s e d o n t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n

, T r o o p e r

N e l s o n a s k e d H u r l b e r t t o s i g n a f o r m c o n s e n t i n g t o a s e a r c h o f h i s p e r s o n a l b e l o n g i n g s

,

specifically including the “camo fanny pack.” Hurlbert signed the form, which was

en titled at the top in bold, capital letters “ PERMISSION TO SEARCH AND SEIZE .”

The form specifically stated a t t h e b o t t o m “ I a m g i v i n g t h i s w r i t t e n p e r m

i s s i o n t o t h e s e

o f f i c e r s f r e e l y a n d v

o l u n t a r i l y

, w i t h o u t a

n y t h r e a t s o r p r o m

i s e s h a v i n g b e e n m a d e

, a n d

a f t e r h a v i n g b e e n i n f

o r m e d b y s a i d o f

f i c e r t h a t I h a v

e a r i g h t t o r e f u s e t h i s s e a r c h a n d o r17

seizure, and to stop such search at any time.” Trooper N e l s o n w r o t e “ c a m o f

a n n y p a c k ”

o n t h e f o r m a s a n i t e m t o b e s e a r c h e d

. I n a d d i t i o n

, H u r l b e r

t w a s g i v e n a M

i r a n d a

w a r n i n g b e f

o r e T r o o p e r N e l s o n a s k e d h i m a n y q u e s t i o n s r e g a r d i n g h i s p e r s o n a l

b e l o n g i n g s a n d b e f

o r e T r o o p e r N e l s o n a s k e d h i m t o s i g n t h e c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h f o r m

.

B o t h D e p u t y H a g g e r t y a n d T r o o p e r N e l s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t H u r l b e r

t w a s n o t u

n d e r a n y s o r t

o f d u r e s s e i t h e r a t t h e t i m e h e s p o n t a n e o u s l y a dmitted that his bag contained contraband

or at the time he signed the form consenting to the search of his personal belongings.

¶ 4 9 While a f

ew facts point to the possibility that Hurlbert’s consent was not

v oluntary, including the Distr i c t C o u r t ’ s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t H u r l b e r

t w a s n o t f

r e e t o l e a v

e

d u r i n g t h e l a t t e r p a r

t o f t h e s t o p

, t h e f

a c t t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s w e r e b o t h a r m e d ( a l t h o u g h n o

w e a p o n s w e r e e v

e r d r a w n )

, a n d t h e f a c t t h a t H u r l b e r t t e s t i f

i e d t h a t T r o o p e r N e l s o n t o l d

h i m h e c o u l d o b t a i n a s e a r c h w a r r a n t f o r t h e s e a r c h i f n e c e s s a r y , the overwhelming

evidence demonstrates that Hurlbert’s consent to search his personal belongings w as

given freely and voluntarily.

¶ 5 0 Accordingly

, w e a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s d e t e r m

i n a t i o n t h a t H u r l b e r t f r e e l y

a n d v o l u n t a r i l y g a v e h i s c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h h i s p e r s o n a l b e l o n g i n g s

.

CONCLUSION

¶ 5 1 Based on the foregoing, we hold that the District Court did not err in denying

Hurlbert’s motion to suppress.

¶ 5 2 A f f i r m e d

.

/ S / J A M E S C

. N E L S O N18

W e C o n c u r :

/ S / W

. W I L L I

A M L E A P H A R T

/ S / P A T R I C I A C O T T E R

/ S / J O H N W A R N E R

/ S / J I M R I C E