State v. Davis

417 Mont. 188

STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.CANDICE LEA DAVIS, Defendant and Appellant.

No DA 23-0408

Submitted on Briefs May 8, 2024

Decided July 9, 2024

2024 MT 145

417 Mont. 188.

____P 3d____

Appeal from the District Court of Ravalli County.

Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Cause No. DC-22-125.

Honorable Jennifer B. Lint, Judge.

The district court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress, because there was sufficient probable cause under the Fourth Amendment to believe she had committed the offense of DUI when she was placed in handcuffs and taken to the sheriff’s office for testing; there was no explanation for the accident other than defendant drifting off the road, which was consistent with impaired driving and the state trooper smelled alcohol emanating from defendant’s vehicle; the state trooper observed defendant had red and watery eyes, and noticed she kept covering her mouth to mask her breath; because the district court correctly found there was no custodial interrogation, defendant’s Miranda rights were not violated; defendant failed to offer any statements she made following being handcuffed that warranted suppression.

Affirmed.

For Appellant: Dustin M. Chouinard, Markette & Chouinard P.C., Hamilton.

For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General, Helena; William E. Fulbright, Ravalli County Attorney, Amanda Smith, Deputy County Attorney, Hamilton.

JUSTICE McKINNON delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Candice Lea Davis (Davis) appeals the denial of her motion to suppress from the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County. We affirm.

¶2 We restate the issues on appeal as follows:

1. Was there probable cause to believe Davis was driving under the influence (DUI) when she was placed in handcuffs and taken to the Sheriff's Office for testing?

2. Did the District Court err when it denied Davis's motion to suppress all statements and tests made after she was placed in handcuffs?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 On December 11, 2021, at around 1:00 a.m., Davis drove her vehicle off the left side of Rickett’s Road in Ravalli County, striking several mailboxes. After striking the mailboxes, Davis crossed over the road and became high-centered on a rock berm. Davis left her vehicle and walked home. She returned to the accident in a different vehicle.

¶4 Officers responded to the scene after the accident was reported later that morning. At approximately 3:30 a.m., Patrol Trooper Andrew Barbera (Trooper Barbera) arrived and observed Davis’s SUV high-centered on a rock berm. He also observed a truck with a male driver and a female passenger, later identified as Davis, and an extension cord tied to both the truck and SUV. Davis did not have a driver’s license but provided Trooper Barbera with her name and date of birth, which Trooper Barbera used to verify her identity.

¶5 While speaking with Davis, Trooper Barbera quickly noted the odor of alcohol from inside Davis’s vehicle and that Davis had red and watery eyes. When asked what caused the accident, Davis simply replied, "[d]eer." Trooper Barbera also observed that when he asked Davis a question, she would cover her mouth with her jacket and look away, which Trooper Barbera believed was an attempt to mask the odor of alcohol coming from her breath. Trooper Barbera noted that Davis had drifted off the left side of the road, crashed into a mailbox, crossed over the road to the right side, and then hit and became stuck in a rock berm.

¶6 To determine how the accident occurred, Trooper Barbera asked Davis some routine questions. He learned she had been driving home from work at Kodiak Jax—an establishment that serves alcohol. He asked Davis if she had anything to drink and she said she had her "shifter"—a colloquial term which Trooper Barbera knew referred to an end-of-shift drink. At this point, Trooper Barbera told Davis she was under investigation for DUI but that she was not under arrest. Trooper Barbera attempted to administer standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs) but found it difficult due to very cold and extremely windy weather conditions. Davis was shivering and Trooper Barbera testified law enforcement is trained to conduct SFSTs under the best conditions possible and that the conditions that morning did not meet that standard.

¶7 Trooper Barbera determined it would be better to transition the investigation to the DUI processing room located at the Sheriff’s Office only a few minutes away. He told Davis she was not under arrest but that she would be handcuffed while being transported. Trooper Barbera testified this was standard operating procedure because suspected impaired drivers can be unpredictable, which can lead to potentially dangerous situations.

¶8 Once at the Sheriff’s Office, Trooper Barbera took Davis to the DUI processing room and removed her handcuffs. He told her again she was under investigation for suspected DUI and proceeded to conduct the SFSTs. Because the results of the SFSTs led Trooper Barbera to believe Davis was impaired, he requested Davis provide a breath sample, which she agreed to do. After obtaining the results, Trooper Barbera arrested Davis for DUI and informed her of her Miranda rights.

¶9 Davis was issued citations for DUI, operating a vehicle with an expired registration, reckless driving, and two misdemeanor counts involving her failure to give notice that she had caused an accident resulting in property damage. Davis was convicted on all counts in Justice Court at a bench trial. She appealed to the District Court for a trial de novo.

¶10 In District Court, Davis filed a motion to suppress. She argued she was subjected to a custodial interrogation without first being advised of her Miranda rights and that all statements she made should be suppressed. Additionally, Davis argued no determination had been made to arrest her prior to taking her into custody and therefore all evidence obtained after she was handcuffed should be suppressed. The State argued that Trooper Barbera’s detention of Davis was justified because he had particularized suspicion she was driving under the influence as a result of his roadside investigation. The State further reasoned it was appropriate for Trooper Barbera to transport Davis to the Sheriff’s Office to conduct the SFSTs because the inclement weather made doing them at the scene impractical.

¶11 The District Court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress, during which Trooper Barbera testified. He testified that he very quickly suspected a DUI because he smelled alcohol at the outset of his investigation. Additionally, he noted Davis had red and watery eyes and that she continually attempted to cover her mouth when speaking to him. He indicated he did not consider Davis under arrest when he handcuffed her to transport her and that he removed the handcuffs once they arrived at the investigation room. Trooper Barbera also testified he did not recall asking Davis any questions outside of what was relevant to administer the tests. He recalled asking only whether Davis had something in her mouth and whether she had consumed alcohol since the accident.

¶12 The District Court issued an order denying Davis’s motion to suppress, reasoning that Trooper Barbera had particularized suspicion to extend the stop at each step of his investigation. It determined Davis and the circumstances of the accident created a particularized suspicion that she was driving while impaired. The District Court also found that due to the weather conditions, relocating Davis to perform the SFSTs at the Sheriff’s Office afforded Davis the best opportunity to provide accurate results and was not only reasonable, but humane. Finally, the District Court found that Davis had not been subject to a custodial interrogation in violation of Miranda because Trooper Barbera had not interrogated her; he repeatedly told Davis she was not under arrest when transporting her to the Sheriff’s Office; handcuffing her was for safety during transportation; Trooper Barbera did not threaten Davis with arrest in order to force her to comply; and he communicated to Davis the reason for going to the Sheriff’s Office prior to transporting her.

¶13 Following the denial of her motion to suppress, Davis pleaded no contest to DUI pursuant to a plea agreement and reserved her right to appeal the District Court’s order denying her motion to suppress.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶14 [1] This Court "review[s] a district court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence for whether the court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether those findings were correctly applied as a matter of law." State v. Vegas, 2020 MT 121, ¶ 8, 400 Mont. 75, 463 P.3d 455 (citing State v. Ruggirello, 2008 MT 8, ¶ 15, 341 Mont. 88, 176 P.3d 252). "A court’s findings of fact are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by substantial credible evidence, the court has misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or our review of the record convinces us that a mistake has been committed." Vegas, ¶ 8 (quoting Ruggirello, ¶ 15).

DISCUSSION

¶15 1. Was there probable cause to believe Davis was driving under the influence when she was placed in handcuffs and taken to the Sheriff’s Office for testing?

¶16 On appeal, Davis argues she was arrested without probable cause when she was handcuffed and placed in the backseat of Trooper Barbera’s patrol vehicle and taken to the Sheriff’s Office. She argues that when she was handcuffed she was "seized" and she should have been given her Miranda rights. The State responds that Davis was only temporarily detained for investigative purposes and was arrested after she performed poorly on SFSTs and Trooper Barbera obtained the results of the breath test. Additionally, the State maintains the temporary seizure of Davis was permissible as Trooper Barbera had particularized suspicion to believe that Davis was driving under the influence.

¶...