{"id":5336,"date":"2011-07-10T08:43:43","date_gmt":"2011-03-24T12:24:31","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-03-24T12:24:31","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5336","title":{"rendered":"MT: Defendant&#8217;s justifications for crossing the fog line do not undermine the objective RS for the stop"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The officer\u2019s observations of objective conduct at the time of the stop justify the stop. The defendant\u2019s post hoc justifications for crossing the fog line twice do not show there was no reason for the stop. <a href=\"http:\/\/searchcourts.mt.gov\/view\/DA%2010-0386%20Published%20--%20Opinion?id={5B082FAD-511A-4EE9-8DC8-1F1A2622337E}\">State v. Flynn<\/a>, 2011 MT 48, 359 Mont. 376, 251 P.3d 143 (2011):<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\n[*P11]  A defendant\u2019s subsequent, valid explanation for conduct that objectively appeared suspicious may affect his or her ultimate liability for a charged offense, but it cannot affect the validity of a stop properly based on particularized suspicion. Lincolnshire v. Dispirito, 552 N.E.2d 1238, 1241 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1990); State v. Kinkead, 570 N.W.2d 97, 101 (Iowa 1997). The particularized suspicion inquiry is a fact based assessment of the objective quantity, content and reliability of information \u201cavailable to the officer.\u201d State v. Clawson, 2009 MT 228, \u00b6 11, 351 Mont. 354, 212 P.3d 1056 (emphasis added). An officer in the field need not consider every possible innocent explanation or legal exception before concluding that particularized suspicion exists. State v. Clark, 2009 MT 327, \u00b6 13, 353 Mont. 1, 218 P.3d 483.<\/p>\n<p>[*P12]  When this Court first adopted the particularized suspicion standard for vehicular stops, it properly recognized that the inquiry turned on what the officer knew, observed,  inferred and ultimately suspected. State v. Gopher, 193 Mont. 189, 193-94, 631 P.2d 293, 296 (1981). &#8230; <\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>b2evALnk.b2WPAutP <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5336\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5336","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5336","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5336"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5336\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5336"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5336"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5336"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}