In May 2022, Nick Monaco, a detective in Ravalli County, Montana, initiated a traffic stop after noticing a speeding vehicle. About 25 seconds later, the car began to slow down, and, another 25 seconds after that, it pulled over. During those 50 or so seconds, Monaco watched the driver through the car’s back window and later testified that her movements were erratic.
Once the car stopped, Monaco walked up and asked the driver, Donna Elizabeth Summers, why she had taken so long to pull over. She responded that “she was singing and talking to” her passenger, Benjamin Ryan, according to the Montana Supreme Court. Monaco collected Summers’ documents, as well as identifying information about Ryan, and then returned to his car to speak with dispatch.
From dispatch, Monaco learned “that Summers had a valid driver’s license and no warrants but did have an alert for history of possession of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia,” according to the Montana Supreme Court. Monaco returned to Summers’ car and asked her to step out so that he could hear her better. He returned her documents, said he’d issue a warning, and made note of the speed limit. Then, Monaco said, “Since I got you here, do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions?,” beginning a phase of the encounter that is now at the center of a Supreme Court petition.
Summers agreed to answer Monaco’s additional questions and later agreed to a vehicle search, during which “Monaco found a methamphetamine pipe and a small bag of methamphetamine.” Summers acknowledged that she owned the pipe, and she was later charged with “felony possession of dangerous drugs and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia.” Summers’ legal team contends that the evidence should be suppressed, because Monaco lacked the “particularized suspicion” that’s required under the Fourth Amendment to detain someone without a warrant and without probable cause. The Montana Supreme Court agreed that Monaco lacked particularized suspicion, but held that he didn’t need it, because Summers “agreed to answer his questions and consented to a search of her vehicle.”
Summers’ petition for review asks the court to review the Montana Supreme Court’s decision and clarify how to assess prolonged stops under the Fourth Amendment. In the absence of clear guidance, the petition explained, disagreement persists among lower courts over whether someone in Summers’ position has voluntarily consented to the additional questions and search, or if, instead, their consent was the product of a “coercive atmosphere” and the belief that they were not free to leave. The Montana Supreme Court acknowledged this confusion in its ruling against Summers, the petition noted, and was itself divided over whether consent offered under these circumstances can be treated as voluntary.
Initially, the state of Montana waived its right to respond to Summer’s petition for review, but, in January, the Supreme Court called for a response. In a brief filed last month, it rejected Summers’ characterization of lower courts’ approach to this issue, contending that the case is “governed by settled Fourth Amendment rules.” According to the state, “every lower court decision that Summers identifies applies the same standard that this Court has established: Under the totality of the circumstances, would a reasonable person have felt free to leave?” The different rulings described by Summers “reflect different fact-bound records, not different legal rules” for the Supreme Court to resolve.
Summers’ response to the state’s brief pushed back against the state’s assessment of the lower court decisions. While it’s true that lower courts “all undertake a totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry,” Summers’ legal team wrote, they “widely diverge on whether a motorist would feel ‘compelled to submit to the officer’s questioning’ if it immediately follows a completed traffic stop,” and that divergence should be addressed by the court.
We will see if the court agrees to do so. Summers v. Montana is scheduled to be considered by the justices at their private conference on Friday, March 20.