State v. Lanchantin

550 P.3d 790

2024 MT 129

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.Neil Howard LANCHANTIN, Defendant and Appellant.

DA 22-0475

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: March 29, 2023

Decided: June 18, 2024

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. BDC-2022-55, Honorable Michael F. McMahon, Presiding Judge

For Appellant: Jeremy S. Yellin, Attorney at Law, Havre, Montana

For Appellee: Austin Knudsen, Montana Attorney General, Brad Fjeldheim, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Kevin Downs, Lewis and Clark County Attorney, Fallon Stanton, Deputy County Attorney, Helena, Montana Justice James Jeremiah Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Neil Lanchantin appeals the First Judicial District Court’s order denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained when law enforcement officers entered private property without a warrant. We address the following dispositive issue:

Whether the District Court erred by denying Lanzhantin’s motion to suppress on the basis that Lanchantin had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

¶2 Lanchantin had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the driveway of the property where he was residing with his girlfriend, which was marked with a "No Trespassing" sign at the entrance to the property. Absent exigent circumstances, the trooper was not allowed to pursue Lanchantin on to the private property he occupied with his girlfriend for a misdemeanor traffic infraction.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 We address the following facts and procedural background pertinent to Lanchantin’s motion to suppress:

¶4 On January 28, 2022, at approximately 10:15 p.m., Montana Highway Patrol Trooper Jesse Short was traveling eastbound on Highway 200 in Lincoln, Montana, when Lanchantin pulled his pickup truck out of a parking lot and into the eastbound lane in front of him. As Trooper Short followed Lanchantin through Lincoln and out of town, he estimated Lanchantin exceeded the increasing posted speed limits by approximately 10-15 miles per hour. Trooper Short activated his overhead lights to initiate a traffic stop. Approximately 20-30 seconds after Trooper Short activated his lights, Lanchantin slowed down, turned on his right blinker, and turned right onto K Lazy 3 Road.

¶5 K Lazy 3 Road is a private easement road providing access to several private properties, including the property owned by Lanchantin’s girlfriend, Katherine Gardner, with whom he was residing at the time. The entrance to K Lazy 3 Road has no gate; it has a timber arch over the entrance with a cattle guard directly below. There is a green street sign on top of a stop sign where K Lazy 3 Road intersects with Highway 200 that identifies it. Shortly after turning onto K Lazy 3 Road, there is a sign posted to a tree on the left-hand side of the road, facing towards vehicles entering the property, which reads: "Private Property—No Trespassing."¹ Further down K Lazy 3 Road, it veers to the right as it enters Gardner’s property. As the road enters Gardner’s property, there is another sign posted to a tree on the right-hand side of the road, which reads: "No Trespassing." Written on this sign are the numbers "1901," which is Gardner’s address.²

¶6 Shortly after Trooper Short turned onto K Lazy 3 Road behind Lanchantin he turned on his siren, but Lanchantin continued down the road until he reached Gardner’s residence. During the pursuit, Trooper Short passed both of the "No Trespassing" signs. Trooper Short had not previously driven on K Lazy 3 Road and he testified that he did not see either of the signs because he was focused on Lanchantin’s truck.

¶7 After stopping, both Trooper Short and Lanchantin exited their vehicles. Trooper Short informed Lanchantin that he stopped him for violating the speed limit on Highway 200. As Trooper Short approached him, Lanchantin gestured towards the building he was parked in front of and stated, "I live here." Trooper Short observed that Lanchantin appeared to be under the influence. After confirming his suspicions, Trooper Short arrested Lanchantin for DUI.

¶8 The State charged Lanchantin with felony DUI, seventh or subsequent offense, and four misdemeanor offenses. Lanchantin moved the District Court to suppress all inculpatory evidence against him. During the suppression hearing, the District Court heard testimony from several witnesses. In addition to Trooper Short, the State called Tanya Kenworthy, Lanchantin’s parole officer, who testified that Lanchantin was required to advise her of his current address, and she did not have Gardner’s residence as being Lanchantin’s address of record.

¶9 Lanchantin called Gardner and Robin Meguire, a neighbor who owns property also accessed by K Lazy 3 Road. Gardner testified that Lanchantin began living with her at 1901 K Lazy 3 Road shortly after Thanksgiving 2021, approximately two months before the night of his arrest Gardner testified that she owns the 33-acre property on which her residence is located. Gardner testified the two "No Trespassing" signs were present at the time of Lanchantin’s arrest and that they were as depicted in the exhibits. Gardner testified that K Lazy 3 Road is a private easement road used by her and three other property owners to access their respective properties. Gardner testified that she purchased the property, in part, because it was secluded and private. Gardner testified that the "No Trespassing" signs were already present when she purchased the property which prompted her to think: "I knew I was in heaven; privacy and no trespassing." Gardner testified that she wrote her address on the "No Trespassing" sign where the road crosses onto her property for delivery drivers when she had ordered items.

¶10 Meguire testified that she purchased a cabin accessible through K Lazy 3 Road as a "private little retreat." She considered the road private property because it was privately maintained, and it was not frequented by the public. Meguire testified that she was aware of the "No Trespassing" signs and noted that the second "No Trespassing" sign was located "right as you enter [Gardner’s] property, I would say her driveway from the private drive."

¶11 The District Court denied Lanchantin’s motion to suppress on the basis that Lanchantin did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy at the location of the stop. Lanchantin pled guilty to the DUI charge but reserved his right to appeal the District Court’s order.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

[1–3] ¶12 "We review denials of motions to suppress evidence for whether the lower court’s supporting findings of fact are clearly erroneous." State v. Peoples, 2022 MT 4, ¶ 10, 407 Mont. 84, 502 P.3d 129 (citation omitted). "A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial credible evidence, if the lower court has misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if our review of the record creates a firm conviction that a mistake was made." State v. Smith, 2021 MT 324, ¶ 9, 407 Mont. 18, 501 P.3d 398 (citation omitted). "We review related lower court interpretations and applications of law de novo for correctness." Peoples, ¶ 10 (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

[4–7] ¶13 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable government searches and seizures. "As a procedural component of these protections, government searches and seizures must generally occur pursuant to a judicial warrant issued on probable cause." City of Missoula v. Kroschel, 2018 MT 142, ¶ 10, 391 Mont. 457, 419 P.3d 1208 (citing U.S. Const. amend. IV; Mont. Const. art. II, § 11). Article II, Section 10, of the Montana Constitution provides that "[t]he right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest." "We address Article II, Section 10 in conjunction with Article II, Section 11 in analyzing and resolving a search and seizure issue that specifically implicates the right to privacy." State v. Goetz, 2008 MT 296, ¶ 14, 345 Mont. 421, 191 P.3d 489 (citations omitted). Article II, Sections 10 and 11, together, "provide a heightened state right to privacy, broader where applicable than the privacy protection provided under the [Fourth Amendment] to the United States Constitution." State v. Staker, 2021 MT 151, ¶ 9, 404 Mont 307, 489 P.3d 489 (citation omitted).

[8] ¶14 In this case, the dispositive issue is whether Lanchantin’s right to privacy and to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by Article II, Sections 10 and 11, was violated when Trooper Short proceeded down a private road beyond a posted "Private Property—No Trespassing" sign, and then proceeded onto a residential driveway beyond another posted "No Trespassing" sign for the purpose of effecting a misdemeanor traffic stop.³ In that regard, to determine whether an unlawful government search has occurred, we consider the following factors:

(1) whether an individual has an actual expectation of privacy;

(2) whether society is willing to recognize that expectation as objectively reasonable; and

(3) the nature of the State’s intrusion.

Smith, ¶ 17 (citation omitted).

¶15 The State concedes that "[t]he facts of this case are extraordinarily similar to those in State v. Smith." Notwithstanding that concession, the State contends that the dispositive difference is that "[a]t no point during this encounter did Lanchantin demand Trooper Short to leave or get a warrant." The State contends: "Without this, nothing unmistakably indicated that entry to the property where the stop occurred was prohibited."

[9] ¶16 There is no dispute that after Trooper Short stopped Lanchantin in Gardner’s driveway, Lanchantin did not demand that Trooper Short leave the property. The determinative issue, then, is whether the two posted "No Trespassing" signs—the first posted along...