## Facts

- Z.M., a 14-year-old, failed to come home one night.
- Z.M.’s mother contacted personnel at Hot Springs High School and reported that Z.M. had not returned home; she asked that he be picked up and that she be contacted if he was found.
- The school resource/law-enforcement liaison officer relayed the information to Officer Chad Bache and asked him to look for Z.M.
- Officer Bache was also aware that local businesses had recently been burglarized and asked the school officer to listen for information about the break-ins.
- Later that morning, Officer Bache saw Z.M. walking with another minor, D.O., and stopped to speak with them.
- During the contact, Officer Bache detected an odor of alcohol and asked whether they had been drinking.
- Z.M. and D.O. said they had been drinking the night before.
- Officer Bache decided to take the youths into custody and transport them.
- Before placing them in the patrol car, Officer Bache noticed Z.M.’s shirt appeared bulky and heard a clanking sound from D.O.’s pockets.
- When asked what was under their shirts, the boys produced bottles of alcohol they had concealed.
- Officer Bache then directed them to empty their pockets, and both had cash.
- Police investigation later connected the alcohol and cash to a burglary at the local bowling alley.
- At the station, Z.M. was questioned about burglaries; Z.M made statements admitting involvement, and officers later took Z.M.’s shoes as evidence.
- In Youth Court, Z.M. moved to suppress the alcohol and money, his statements, and evidence derived from the seizure of his shoes.
- The Youth Court denied the motion to suppress. Z.M. entered a plea agreement that purported to preserve his ability to appeal the suppression ruling and then appealed.

## Issues

1. Did Z.M. validly preserve (as part of his plea disposition) the right to appeal the Youth Court’s denial of his motion to suppress?
2. Did the Youth Court err in denying suppression of (a) the alcohol and cash found during the encounter, (b) Z.M.’s later statements during police questioning, and (c) derivative evidence such as Z.M.’s shoes?

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court held Z.M. adequately preserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
- The Court affirmed the Youth Court’s suppression ruling in part and reversed it in part.
- The Court concluded that some portion of the initial encounter and related police actions were lawful, so suppression was not required as to all challenged evidence.
- The Court also concluded that constitutional limits were violated as to part of the later custodial questioning and the chain of evidence flowing from it; the Court ordered suppression to that extent.
- The Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with its rulings on which statements and derivative evidence must be excluded.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant (including a youth in delinquency proceedings) may appeal a suppression ruling after a plea only if the right to appeal was properly preserved on the record as part of the plea disposition.
- Appellate review of suppression rulings applies clear-error review to findings of fact and de novo review to constitutional questions (search, seizure, and custodial-interrogation questions).
- Under Montana law, a brief investigative stop requires “particularized suspicion” based on objective data and articulable facts plus rational inferences.
- Moving a person to a police station or otherwise imposing restraints associated with formal arrest generally requires probable cause or valid legal authority for custody.
- Searches and seizures connected to taking a person into custody must be reasonable in scope; officer-safety and transport concerns may justify limited measures, but broader evidence-gathering steps must still satisfy constitutional standards.
- Miranda warnings are required before custodial interrogation; when determining custody and voluntariness for a youth, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including the setting and the youth’s age.
- Evidence obtained by exploiting an unlawful seizure or unlawful custodial interrogation, including derivative physical evidence, is subject to exclusion unless the State shows a recognized exception.

## Conclusion

In the Matter of Z.M. held that Z.M. could pursue an appeal of the Youth Court’s suppression ruling despite a plea disposition, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part: some evidence from the initial encounter was not suppressed, but the Court required suppression of parts of Z.M.’s later custodial statements and related derivative evidence and remanded for further proceedings.


In the Matter of Z.M., 337 Mont. 278, 160 P.3d 490 (2007)