Submitted on Briefs: October 19, 2016
APPEAL
FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and
For the County of Missoula, Cause No. DC 14-393 Honorable
John W. Larson, Presiding Judge
For
Appellant: Craig Shannon, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana
For
Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Jonathan
M. Krauss, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Kirsten H. Pabst, Missoula County Attorney, James McCubbin,
Deputy Missoula County Attorney, Missoula, Montana
OPINION
Jim
Rice, Justice
¶1
Appellant Kelly Ray Massey, Jr. (Massey) appeals the order of
the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, denying
his motion to suppress. We affirm and address the following
issue:
Did
the District Court err by determining there was
particularized suspicion for the traffic stop of Massey's
vehicle?
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶2
At approximately 1:00 a.m. on June 16, 2014, Trooper Lynwood
Bateman observed a sport-utility vehicle with black plastic,
logo-style covers on its tail lights, and initiated a traffic
stop because the covers appeared to obscure and diminish the
visibility of the vehicle's tail lights. During the
traffic stop, Bateman observed signs that Massey was impaired
by drugs and asked him to step out of his vehicle. As Massey
stepped out, Bateman observed a small, plastic bag with
possible drug residue in plain view in the passenger door
pocket. Massey stated the bag was not his and declined to
consent to a search of the vehicle. Bateman seized the
vehicle and released Massey. A subsequent search of the
vehicle pursuant to a search warrant revealed drugs, a
handgun, drug paraphernalia, and other items leading to the
filing of charges against Massey for criminal possession of
dangerous drugs with intent to distribute, a felony, and
criminal possession of dangerous drugs/opiates, a felony.
¶3
Massey moved to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle on
the ground that Bateman lacked particularized suspicion to
initiate a traffic stop. At the suppression hearing, Bateman
testified that he was approximately 500 feet behind
Massey's vehicle when he noticed the tail light covers,
which he stated "were black and covered up the
light." Bateman initiated the traffic stop "because
[the tail light covers] were obscuring and diminishing the
visibility of the lights to the rear, " and he needed to
stop the vehicle to determine if the lights were visible from
more than 1, 000 feet, the distance required by statute.
¶4
Under cross examination, Bateman testified that the tail
light covers functioned as stencils, which "left
portions of the red visible, but they obscured it." The
following exchange also took place:
Q. Okay. Do you see [these stencil-like covers] fairly often
in Missoula in the line of work that you're in?
A. I see them, yeah, I would say fairly ...