State v. Zeimer

How Long Can Police Hold You at a Montana DUI Stop? State v. Zeimer, 2022 MT 96

Boland Aarab PLLP

In State v. Zeimer, 2022 MT 96, the Montana Supreme Court unanimously held that officers may hold a driver only as long as it takes to diligently confirm or dispel the suspicion that justified the stop. Deputies who spent more than 20 minutes questioning a driver about unrelated matters before running field sobriety tests unlawfully prolonged a DUI stop, so the drugs later found in his truck had to be suppressed and his convictions were reversed.

Key Takeaways

• A lawful stop becomes unlawful once police substantially prolong it beyond what is needed to investigate the reason for the stop (Zeimer ¶¶ 45, 52; Mont. Const. art. II, § 11).
• Field sobriety tests, breath tests and protective pat-downs are each a separate search that needs its own particularized suspicion (¶¶ 36, 38).
• Nervousness, looking away and an inconsistent story are not enough, without more, to extend a stop (¶ 50).
• Evidence found because of an unlawfully prolonged stop is suppressed unless the State proves an exception (¶¶ 54–55).

In this case sheet: At a glance · What the Court held · What changed · Statutes · When it applies · How hard · FAQ

The lawyers behind this case are the lawyers who handle yours. Contact Boland Aarab PLLP for a free consultation at (406) 315-3737.

At a glance

What did the Montana Supreme Court hold in State v. Zeimer?

On April 15, 2019, a Dawson County deputy responded to a 911 call about a pickup parked across several spaces at the Glendive Town Pump with the driver slumped over the wheel (¶ 2). The Court agreed the deputy had enough reason to stop Mr. Zeimer and check for impaired driving (¶ 35).

The problem was what happened next. The body-camera video showed Mr. Zeimer calm, coherent and steady on his feet (¶ 42). Instead of promptly running field sobriety tests, the deputies:

• questioned him about his overnight whereabouts and an unrelated case;
• called his sister;
• dug into his pockets during a “pat-down” more than ten minutes into the stop (¶¶ 37–40);
• asked him about drugs (¶ 47).

They began field sobriety testing only after more than 20 minutes (¶ 48). By the end of the roadside detention, before his truck was searched, he had been held for 47 minutes (¶ 15).

The Court held that the deputies “unlawfully prolonged the duration of the initially valid investigative DUI stop” (¶ 52). Because the State showed no exception to the exclusionary rule, the methamphetamine found in the truck was suppressed and both convictions were reversed (¶¶ 55–56).

What did Zeimer change in Montana law?

Zeimer did not overrule earlier cases. It restated and sharpened several rules that Montana courts now apply regularly:

1. Diligence is required. Police may ask some unrelated questions during a stop, but only if doing so does not substantially prolong the stop beyond what is needed to diligently investigate its original reason (¶¶ 45, 49). The Court followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s rule in Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015).
2. Each added intrusion needs its own justification. Field sobriety tests and preliminary breath tests are separate searches (¶ 36). A protective pat-down requires particularized suspicion that the person is “armed and presently dangerous.” It is limited to patting the outer clothing for weapons and does not allow reaching into pockets (¶¶ 38–40; § 46-5-401(2)(b), MCA).
3. Innocent behavior alone is not suspicion. Without articulated facts pointing to a particular crime, “merely inconsistent accounts,” nervousness or defensiveness are insufficient to extend a stop (¶ 50, collecting Harning, Fisher and Broken Rope).
4. The burden shifts to the State. Once a stop is shown to be unlawful, the State must prove, “beyond mere speculation,” that an exception to the exclusionary rule applies (¶ 54).

At least a dozen later Montana Supreme Court decisions cite Zeimer, including State v. Mefford (2022), State v. Noli (2023), State v. Loberg (2024) and State v. Fish (2026).

Which Montana laws and rules apply?

• Mont. Const. art. II, § 11: protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
• § 46-5-401, MCA: investigative stops and frisks
• § 61-8-1002, MCA: driving under the influence. Zeimer cited the former § 61-8-401, which the 2021 Legislature repealed and recodified.
• U.S. Const. amend. IV; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

When might Zeimer apply to you?

• A “welfare check” becomes an interrogation. Police check on a parked driver, find no sign of impairment, but keep asking where you have been and who you know.
• A traffic stop drags on while officers “wait” or ask to search. If the reason for the stop has been handled or dispelled, officers need new, specific suspicion to keep you there.
• A pat-down that goes into your pockets. A weapons frisk is limited to feeling outer clothing for weapons. Pulling out wallets, pill bottles or papers goes beyond it.

Every stop turns on its own facts. Zeimer repeatedly stresses “the particular evidentiary record in this case” (¶ 56).

How hard is it to win a suppression appeal in Montana?

These appeals are difficult:

• The Supreme Court reviews the trial judge’s factual findings only for clear error. It decides legal questions fresh, but it gives real deference to what the trial court found (¶ 21).
• A defendant usually has to preserve the issue in the district court before raising it on appeal. In Zeimer, the State argued that the issue had been waived, and the Court rejected that argument only because the issue was actually litigated below (¶ 53).

What made Zeimer winnable was the body-camera and dash-camera footage. Again and again, the Court relied on the recording where it contradicted the deputy’s testimony:

• on “slurred” speech (¶ 42);
• on “constricted” pupils in bright sunlight (¶ 43);
• on “nervous” glances (¶ 44).

If you were stopped, the video is often the most important evidence in the case.

The Boland Aarab Way

Boland Aarab PLLP represented Mr. Zeimer in this appeal. We read every minute of the recording against the testimony, because the details decide the outcome. That same work goes into the serious trucking and injury cases we take: build the record, then make the court look at it. When you hire Boland Aarab, you work directly with the attorneys whose names are on opinions like this one.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can Montana police hold me while they wait for a background check? Routine checks are allowed only if they do not substantially prolong the stop beyond what is needed for its original purpose, unless new particularized suspicion arises (Zeimer ¶ 45).

Is a field sobriety test a search in Montana? Yes. The Montana Supreme Court treats standardized field sobriety tests and preliminary breath tests as separate searches that require particularized suspicion of DUI (Zeimer ¶ 36).

Can an officer go through my pockets during a pat-down? A protective frisk is limited to patting outer clothing for readily recognizable weapons. Reaching into pockets without that basis exceeds its lawful scope (Zeimer ¶¶ 39–40).

Work With the Lawyers Behind These Cases

Boland Aarab is a Great Falls trial firm. The same attorneys who argue before the Montana Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit handle our clients’ serious injury, trucking and wrongful-death cases from the first call. Contact Boland Aarab PLLP for a free consultation at (406) 315-3737.

About Boland Aarab PLLP: Boland Aarab PLLP is a Great Falls, Montana trial firm. Its attorneys, Caitlin Boland Aarab and Samir F. Aarab, have appeared in more than 40 matters before the Montana Supreme Court and have argued twice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The firm carries on the Great Falls practice Thomas E. Boland began in 1974. Meet our attorneys.

Sources:

• State v. Zeimer, 2022 MT 96 (official opinion)
• Mont. Const. art. II, § 11
• § 46-5-401, MCA
• § 61-8-1002, MCA
• Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015)

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.