Background
Shortly after midnight on January 27, 2024, two Bozeman police officers observed Lisa Rene Johnson driving a white SUV with an inoperable headlight and swerving within her lane. After initiating a traffic stop, Officer Solorzano detected the smell of alcohol on Johnson’s breath, noted her slow and slurred speech, and observed her fumble with insurance documents and fail to produce her registration. Johnson admitted she had consumed one glass of wine earlier that evening. Based on these observations, the officers asked Johnson to exit the vehicle to perform standardized field sobriety tests (SFSTs).
Johnson failed both the SFSTs and a preliminary breath test (PBT). She was arrested and transported to the Gallatin County Detention Center, where an Intoxilyzer 9000 breath test returned a BAC of 0.116. She was charged with misdemeanor DUI and a headlight violation. The State later added an alternate charge of operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more.
Johnson moved to suppress evidence on three grounds: lack of particularized suspicion for the initial stop, lack of particularized suspicion to expand the stop into a DUI investigation, and improper administration of the SFSTs. The Gallatin County Municipal Court denied all three motions after a hearing at which body camera and dash camera footage was admitted into evidence. Following a jury trial on July 16, 2024, Johnson was convicted of operating a vehicle with a BAC of 0.08 or more but acquitted of the DUI and headlight charges. The Eighteenth Judicial District Court affirmed on intermediate appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the conviction. On the question of particularized suspicion for the initial stop, the Court held that the officers’ observation of an inoperable headlight — corroborated by dash camera footage reviewed by the Municipal Court — was a statutory violation sufficient to justify the stop. The Court declined to reweigh the conflicting evidence between the officers’ testimony and Johnson’s testimony (supported by a headlight-replacement receipt), noting that credibility determinations belong to the trial court. The Court further noted that even a reasonable mistake of fact by officers can support a lawful stop under Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014).
On the expansion of the stop to a DUI investigation, the Court held that the totality of the circumstances — lane swerving, odor of alcohol, slurred speech, inability to produce documents, and Johnson’s own admission of drinking — provided sufficient particularized suspicion to administer SFSTs and a PBT. The Court rejected Johnson’s coercion argument, reaffirming that officers are not required to warn a driver of the right to refuse consent to field sobriety testing, and that Officer Solorzano’s request that Johnson exit the vehicle and perform the SFSTs did not constitute coercion.
The Court declined to disturb the admission of the Intoxilyzer 9000 results, finding Johnson’s supporting arguments underdeveloped and unsupported by analysis. The Court also refused to consider Johnson’s due process claim regarding an alleged failure to advise her of her right to an independent blood test, because the issue had not been raised or preserved in the lower courts and Johnson had not requested plain error review.
Key Takeaways
- An officer’s observation of a headlight violation, corroborated by dash camera footage, provides particularized suspicion for a traffic stop even if the defendant is ultimately acquitted of the underlying traffic charge.
- Officers are not required to warn a driver of the right to refuse field sobriety testing; a driver’s compliance, assessed under the totality of the circumstances, can constitute voluntary consent.
- Arguments raised for the first time on appeal — including due process claims regarding the right to an independent blood test — are waived absent preservation in the record and a request for plain error review.
- This is a noncitable memorandum opinion under Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules and does not serve as precedent.
Why It Matters
For practitioners handling DUI suppression motions in Montana, this case reinforces that courts will evaluate the lawfulness of a stop based on what officers observed at the time — not what is ultimately proven at trial. An acquittal on the underlying traffic charge does not retroactively invalidate the stop that led to the DUI arrest, provided the officers had an objectively reasonable basis for their initial observations.
The decision also underscores the importance of preserving all constitutional arguments at the trial level. Johnson’s due process claim regarding an independent blood test — potentially a meaningful challenge — was entirely foreclosed because it was never raised below, illustrating the high cost of procedural default in criminal appeals.