Court Opinion

ID: 9375847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-28 23:05:51.535017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:02.165721
License: Public Domain

02/28/2023

                                          DA 22-0286
                                                                                          Case Number: DA 22-0286

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
                                          2023 MT 36N

STATE OF MONTANA,

               Plaintiff and Appellee,

         v.

DARRIN JOHNSON,

               Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM:           District Court of the Ninth Judicial District,
                       In and For the County of Teton, Cause No. DC-21-011
                       Honorable Robert G. Olson, Presiding Judge

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

                For Appellant:

                       Trevor Carlson, Carlson Law, PLLC, Great Falls, Montana

                For Appellee:

                       Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Cori Losing, Assistant
                       Attorney General, Helena, Montana

                       Joe Coble, Teton County Attorney, Jennifer M. Stutz, Deputy County
                       Attorney, Choteau, Montana

                                                  Submitted on Briefs: January 25, 2023

                                                              Decided: February 28, 2023

Filed:

                                     ir-6tArn-if
                       __________________________________________
                                         Clerk
Justice Ingrid Gustafson delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1     Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating

Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not

serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this

Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana

Reports.

¶2     Defendant and Appellant Darrin Johnson (Johnson) appeals from the August 30,

2021 Order Denying Motion to Suppress and the subsequent April 20, 2022 Judgment and

Sentence issued by the Ninth Judicial District Court, Teton County. We affirm.

¶3     Johnson was driving his crew-cab Ford pickup on Montana Highway 89 on

October 10, 2020. It was dark out and Johnson’s vehicle had aftermarket, low intensity,

non-flashing green lighting in three locations—a horizontal strip of small, oval lights ran

across the bottom of the front bumper, under the headlights; square lights on each of the

truck’s side mirrors; and a strip of small, oval lights outlining the cab’s rear window along

its top and sides.

¶4     Teton County Sheriff’s Deputy Whiting stopped Johnson because she believed that

under § 61-9-209, MCA, the additional lighting was required to be amber, rather than

green, in color. After effectuating the stop, it ripened into a DUI investigation. Ultimately,

Johnson was cited for first offense DUI, a misdemeanor, in violation of § 61-8-401, MCA,

and Improper Color—Front Clearance/Marker Lamp or Reflector, a misdemeanor, in

violation of § 61-9-209, MCA. Johnson filed a motion to suppress in the Justice Court,

                                              2
which was denied. Johnson thereafter pled guilty to both charges and appealed to the

District Court. At the District Court, Johnson filed a Motion to Suppress in which he

asserted the aftermarket low-intensity green lighting on his truck did not violate

§ 61-9-209, MCA, such that law enforcement did not have particularized suspicion to

effectuate the traffic stop and all subsequent information supporting the DUI offense was

fruit of the poisonous tree subject to suppression.

¶5     The State countered that Deputy Whiting observed what she believed to be a

violation of § 61-9-209, MCA, and thus, had the requisite particularized suspicion for the

stop. The State further asserted particularized suspicion for the stop existed based on its

assertions that Johnson was also in violation of § 61-9-217, MCA1 and § 61-9-402, MCA.2

¶6     After completion of full briefing, the District Court concluded that based on the

pictures taken by the deputies’ dash cameras, there were no green lights on the rear of the

vehicle, thus Johnson was not in violation of § 61-9-209(2), MCA. The District Court

concluded there were green lamps on the front of the vehicle and as there is no definition

of clearance lamps, marker lamps, or reflectors in the Montana code, Deputy Whiting had

reasonable suspicion that the aftermarket, low intensity green lights constituted a violation

1
  Section 61-9-217, MCA, precludes an auxiliary off-road lamp mounted more than 42 inches
above the level surface when the vehicle is operated or parked on a highway.
2
  Section 61-9-402, MCA, provides for use of a flashing green signal lamp to designate the
on-scene command and control vehicle in an emergency or disaster.

                                              3
of § 61-9-209(1), MCA, and denied Johnson’s motion to suppress. Following this ruling,

the parties entered into a plea agreement whereby Johnson retained his rights of appeal.

¶7     “‘We review a denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the lower court’s

findings of fact were clearly erroneous and whether it correctly applied the law to those

findings.’” State v. Emerson, 2015 MT 254, ¶ 12, 380 Mont. 487, 355 P.3d 763 (quoting

State v. Strom, 2014 MT 234, ¶ 8, 376 Mont. 277, 333 P.3d 218). “A court’s determination

that particularized suspicion exists is a question of fact reviewed for clear error.” State v.

Dupree, 2015 MT 103, ¶ 8, 378 Mont. 499, 346 P.3d 1114 (citing State v. Gill, 2012 MT

36, ¶ 10, 364 Mont. 182, 272 P.3d 60). “We review a district court’s factual findings of

particularized suspicion for clear error and its application of those facts to the law for

correctness.” City of Missoula v. Sharp, 2015 MT 289, ¶ 5, 381 Mont. 225, 358 P.3d 204

(citation omitted).

¶8     The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 11

of the Montana Constitution prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures, including brief

investigatory stops. State v. Massey, 2016 MT 316, ¶ 9, 385 Mont. 460, 385 P.3d 544.

Pursuant to § 46-5-401(1), MCA, “a peace officer may stop any person or vehicle that is

observed in circumstances that create a particularized suspicion that the person or occupant

of the vehicle has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an offense.”

“Particularized suspicion is established when a peace officer has objective data from which

he or she can make certain inferences and a suspicion resulting from those inferences that

                                              4
the person to be stopped is, or has been, engaged in some wrongdoing.” City of Billings v.

Costa, 2006 MT 181, ¶ 18, 333 Mont. 84, 140 P.3d 1070 (citation omitted).

¶9     Johnson asserts the validity of particularized suspicion hinges on whether the

aftermarket lighting on his truck is illegal. Johnson specifically asserts his aftermarket

lighting does not violate § 61-9-209, MCA, and, as such, Deputy Whiting did not have

particularized suspicion that he was committing an offense. Section 61-9-209, MCA,

provides:

       (1) Front clearance lamps and those marker lamps and reflectors mounted
       on the front or on the side near the front of a vehicle must display or reflect
       an amber color.

       (2) Rear clearance lamps and those marker lamps and reflectors mounted on
       the rear or on the sides near the rear of a vehicle must display or reflect a red
       color.

       (3) All lighting devices, reflectors, and stoplights mounted on the rear of a
       vehicle must display or reflect a red color, except:

              (a) the signal devices, as defined in 61-9-218;

              (b) the light illuminating the license plate that must be a white lamp;
              and

              (c) the light emitted by a backup lamp that must be white.

Johnson asserts his aftermarket lights are not clearance lamps, marker lamps, or reflectors.

Montana code does not provide a definition of clearance lamps or marker lamps such that

determining what they are requires careful interpretation of various statutes contained in

Title 61, Chapter 9, Part 2, MCA, providing for vehicle “Lighting Equipment.” As noted

by the District Court, Johnson may very well be correct, but reaching such a conclusion

                                              5
requires considerable interpretive work. Given that § 61-9-226, MCA, permits additional

lighted lamps or illuminating devices on motor vehicles, § 61-9-209, MCA, does not

provide for all permitted vehicle lighting.3 Further, when § 61-9-209, MCA, is read in

conjunction with §§ 61-9-208 and -210, MCA, which set forth the requirement that only

trucks or buses of 80 or more inches wide must have two clearance lamps mounted as near

the top of the vehicle as practicable on each the front and rear of the vehicle and two side

marker lamps on each side of the vehicle, it becomes apparent that the green small strip

lighting on the bottom of the front bumper, under the headlights of Johnson’s standard

truck were not clearance or marker lamps as contemplated in Title 61, Chapter 9, Part 2,

MCA.

¶10    The low-intensity aftermarket lights, likewise, are not auxiliary off-road lamps as

contemplated in § 61-9-217(4), MCA. Auxiliary off-road lamps are designed to illuminate

off road and are thus larger and brighter than regular headlights which is why they may not

be lighted while a vehicle is operated or parked on a highway. Section 61-9-217(4), MCA.

The State’s argument with regard to § 61-9-402(8), MCA, is equally unavailing. While

§ 61-9-402(8), MCA, provides a police vehicle and an authorized emergency vehicle may

be equipped with a flashing green lamp for purposes of designation as the on-scene

command and control vehicle in an emergency or disaster, it does not preclude non-police

3
 In fact, Title 61, Chapter 9, Part 2, MCA, provides 29 different statutes dealing with lighting
equipment for vehicles.

                                               6
and non-emergency vehicles from displaying non-flashing, low-intensity green lighted

lamps and illuminating devices.

¶11   Upon more in-depth interpretation of § 61-9-209, MCA, within the entirety of

Title 61, Chapter 9, Part 2, MCA, Deputy Whiting’s belief that Johnson’s aftermarket

lighting violated § 61-9-209, MCA, was mistaken. Contrary to Johnson’s assertion,

however, the inquiry does not end there.

¶12   The United States Supreme Court has decided and established an officer’s mistake

of law can establish particularized suspicion to justify a stop. State v. Gardner, 2022 MT

3, ¶ 13, 407 Mont. 72, 501 P.3d 925. “[P]articularized suspicion ‘can rest on a mistaken

understanding of the scope of a legal prohibition’ if the mistake is reasonable under the

circumstances.” Gardner, ¶ 13 (citing Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60, 135 S. Ct.

530, 536 (2014)). “For a mistake of law to be reasonable, a ‘statute must pose a really

difficult or very hard question of statutory interpretation’ and ‘such cases will be

exceedingly rare.’” Gardner, ¶ 13 (quoting Heien, 574 U.S. at 70, 135 S. Ct. at 541

(Kagan, J., concurring)). Thus, we must determine whether Deputy Whiting’s mistake of

law was reasonable. “[C]ases where a mistake of law will be reasonable are ‘exceedingly

rare’ and occur only when a statute is ‘genuinely ambiguous, such that overturning the

officer’s judgment requires hard interpretive work.’” Gardner, ¶ 20 (quoting Heien, 574

U.S. at 70, 135 S. Ct. at 541 (Kagan, J., concurring)).          Given the breadth and

interconnectedness of the statutes in Title 61, Chapter 9, Part 2, MCA, and the lack of

statutory definitions for the various lights referenced therein including clearance lamps,

                                            7
marker lamps, and auxiliary lamps, ambiguity exists such that overturning Deputy

Whiting’s judgment under the circumstances of this case requires “hard interpretive work.”

As such, we conclude under the particular circumstances of this case, that Deputy

Whiting’s misunderstanding of the law, although mistaken, was reasonable such that she

had particularized suspicion to make the traffic stop. Gardner, ¶ 20.

¶13    We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of our

Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion of the

Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear application of

applicable standards of review.

¶14    Affirmed.

                                                 /S/ INGRID GUSTAFSON

We concur:

/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR

                                             8