Court Opinion

ID: 9886043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 15:34:54.363435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:53.821233
License: Public Domain

Justice Beth Baker, specially concurring.
  

   ¶37 I join most of ¶¶ 31-35 of Justice McKinnon's Special Concurrence, because I believe it applies the correct analysis of the governing law to the facts of this case. I part company with Justice McKinnon, however, on two points.
  

   ¶38 First, I do not agree that
   
    Hill
   
   ,
   
    Bullock
   
   , and
   
    Parker
   
   set forth inconsistent interpretations of standing to challenge the legality of a search. A defendant charged with a possessory offense in Montana has automatic standing to contest the search.
   
    Bullock
   
   ,
   
    272 Mont. at 372-73
   
   ,
   
    901 P.2d at 68-69
   
   . We did not apply a different rule in
   
    Hill
   
   . We did not hold that Hill lacked standing to challenge the search, but analyzed his claims and determined that there was no unlawful government intrusion into Hill's privacy.
  

   ¶39 Second, I do not take the Court's Opinion today to hold, as a matter of law, that a probationer has no expectation of privacy "in his person, vehicle, or residence." Opinion, ¶¶ 27, 31 (McKinnon, J., specially concurring). I understand the Court's conclusion to be that, under the facts of this case, Conley had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle that was searched. Like Justice McKinnon, I believe that the law does support Conley's expectation of privacy-at least in the glasses pouch-but also that the facts gave rise to reasonable suspicion to justify the search.
  

   ¶40 I join the Court in affirming the District Court's denial of Conley's motion to suppress.