The Montana Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Lilly Laroque, affirming a lower court's decision to suppress blood evidence collected without a warrant in a DUI case. This ruling, issued on September 1, 2026, has significant implications for how consent laws are interpreted in the state, particularly in cases involving serious injuries.

The court's decision stems from an incident on August 3, 2023, when Laroque was involved in a head-on collision that resulted in serious injuries to both her and the other driver, Delaney Doherty, who later died. The case raised important questions about the legality of warrantless blood draws and the concept of implied consent under Montana law.

Background

The parties involved in this case are the State of Montana, represented by Attorney General Austin Knudsen and other state attorneys, and Lilly Laroque, who was defended by attorney Michael Marchesini. Laroque was driving a pickup truck that collided with Doherty's vehicle, leading to serious injuries for both drivers. Following the crash, law enforcement discovered marijuana-related items in Laroque's vehicle.

After the accident, Laroque was taken to a hospital for treatment. While there, Sergeant Derek Stoner approached her to request a blood sample. He recorded the interaction, during which he read Laroque the Implied Consent Advisory form. However, Laroque did not clearly respond to his requests for consent to the blood draw. Following the blood draw, toxicology tests indicated that Laroque's blood contained THC above the legal driving limit.

The Ruling

The Montana Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling that Laroque did not consent to the blood draw, stating that the District Court's finding was not clearly erroneous. Chief Justice Cory J. Swanson noted, "There is no substantial evidence on which the Court can conclude that Laroque understood the Implied Consent Advisory; what was being asked; or in any meaningful way voluntarily consented to a warrantless blood draw."

The court highlighted that the State had not established any exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as exigent circumstances, which could justify the warrantless blood draw. The ruling emphasized that consent must be voluntary and that Laroque's non-responsiveness indicated a lack of understanding of the situation.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future DUI cases in Montana. It clarifies the standards for implied consent and the necessity for clear, affirmative consent when law enforcement seeks to collect blood samples. The court's decision reinforces the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as outlined in both the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the Montana Constitution.

Legal experts suggest that this ruling may lead to more stringent requirements for law enforcement when obtaining consent for blood draws, particularly in cases where a driver has been involved in an accident. It may also encourage individuals to be more aware of their rights regarding consent in similar situations.

What's Next

The State of Montana has the option to appeal the Supreme Court's decision, but it is unclear if they will pursue further legal action. There are no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling. The outcome of this case will likely influence how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding the interpretation of consent laws in DUI investigations.