City of Helena v. Detienne
This text of 2013 MT 225N (City of Helena v. Detienne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
August 13 2013
DA 12-0696
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2013 MT 225N
CITY OF HELENA,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
SHAWN OWEN DETIENNE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and For the County of Lewis and Clark, Cause No. BDC 2012-171 Honorable Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Palmer A. Hoovestal, Hoovestal Law Firm, PLLC; Helena, Montana
For Appellee:
Tinothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Mardell Ployhar, Assistant Attorney General; Helena, Montana
Jeffrey Hindoien, Helena City Attorney, Todd D. Baker, Deputy City Attorney; Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 17, 2013 Decided: August 13, 2013
Filed:
__________________________________________ Clerk Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), 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 Appellant Shawn Detienne (Detienne) appeals the order of the First Judicial District
Court, Lewis and Clark County, denying his motion to suppress. We affirm.
¶3 Helena Police Officer Tim Coleman (Coleman) noticed a car in the parking lot next to
Valley Bank on September 11, 2011, at approximately 2:45 a.m. The engine was running
and the car’s lights were on. The driver, who was later identified as Detienne, was in the
driver’s side seat lying against the door.
¶4 Officer Coleman decided to conduct a welfare check due to his concern that the
“individual inside the vehicle was having medical [issues] or was highly intoxicated.”
Coleman knocked on the car several times, but was unsuccessful in awakening the person.
¶5 Coleman opened the door to turn the car off when he noticed “a really strong odor of
alcohol coming from the vehicle.” Coleman proceeded to conduct a DUI investigation.
Coleman arrested Detienne for driving under the influence.
¶6 Detienne filed a motion with the Municipal Court to suppress the evidence of his
intoxication after he was unlawfully seized. The Municipal Court denied the motion after
holding an evidentiary hearing. Detienne appealed the denial of his motion to suppress to the
District Court.
2 ¶7 The District Court held an oral argument on October 23, 2012. The District Court
affirmed. The District Court determined that Officer Coleman possessed sufficient objective
evidence to justify opening the door to the vehicle. The District Court further determined
that the circumstances supported the likelihood that the person inside the car could be
committing the offense of DUI. Detienne appeals.
¶8 Detienne argues on appeal that Coleman’s action of opening the car to remove the
keys after Coleman was no longer concerned about Detienne’s welfare constitutes an
unlawful seizure. Detienne further argues that his vehicle was properly parked with no
damage or evidence of foul play. We review a district court’s grant or denial of a motion to
suppress to determine whether the court’s findings are clearly erroneous and whether those
findings were applied correctly as a matter of law. State v. Gill, 2012 MT 36, ¶ 10, 364
Mont. 182, 272 P.3d 60.
¶9 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d) of our
Internal Operating Rules, which provides for noncitable memorandum opinions. It is
manifest on the face of the briefs and the record before us that substantial evidence supports
the District Court’s findings regarding Detienne’s motion to suppress and that the District
Court correctly applied well settled Montana law.
¶10 Affirmed.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH 3 /S/ LAURIE McKINNON /S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT /S/ JIM RICE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2013 MT 225N, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-helena-v-detienne-mont-2013.