Montana Supreme Court hears challenge to obstruction conviction after man filmed traffic stop

HELENA — The Montana Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments over whether Sean Michael Dohmen’s convictions for obstructing a peace officer can stand after he filmed a routine traffic stop from a public sidewalk.

Carolyn Jabadlo, counsel for Dohmen, told the court that Dohmen “is being criminally punished for exercising his right to record the police in public,” and urged the justices to rule that the obstruction statute and the jury instructions used at trial prevented the jury from considering constitutionally protected recording. She said Dohmen stood 10 to 15 feet away from the stop, that three law-enforcement videos exist on the record but Dohmen’s recording does not, and that an officer called for backup after learning someone was filming.

The case centers on whether the jury was foreclosed from assessing constitutional defenses because of two jury instructions at trial. Counsel identified instruction 13, which told jurors that reasonable time, place and manner restrictions can limit First Amendment activity but did not define “reasonable,” and instruction 11, which told jurors that a restriction deemed reasonable would not be a defense to the obstruction charge. Jabadlo argued that combination left no practical means for jurors to find that constitutionally protected recording could not form the basis of the obstructing charge.

Matthew Siegel, arguing for amici the American Civil Liberties Union, told justices the jury had been authorized to convict on a legal theory that was invalid as a matter of law and urged the court to exercise plain-error review to correct an unconstitutional conviction and to give trial courts clearer guidance. “It cannot be the case that in every traffic stop the police may make a no-recording perimeter so expansive that no one can record audio or meaningful footage,” Siegel said, arguing that a restriction that eliminates audio is not narrowly tailored and therefore fails the alternatives-and-tailoring requirement of time, place and manner analysis.

Assistant Attorney General Thad Tudor urged the court to affirm the convictions, saying the record contains sufficient evidence for any rational juror to find the elements of obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt. Tudor pointed to testimony that Dohmen attempted to communicate with the occupants of the stopped vehicle and that an officer’s attention was diverted; he cited State v. Eisenzimmer as the most directly analogous Montana precedent. Tudor also noted testimony that officers told Dohmen he could film from a location by a nearby tree and that trial counsel did not present an as-applied constitutional motion at the trial level, a point the State says undermines a plain-error claim.

Justices pressed both sides on the practical line-drawing question: when does constitutionally protected recording become interference with a police investigation? Several justices asked whether trial courts should decide reasonableness as a matter of law in many cases or whether juries retain a role, and whether Montana’s state constitutional protections require a different analysis than federal precedents. Counsel for Dohmen and the ACLU argued that trial judges should often resolve the limits of reasonable time, place and manner restrictions before jury consideration; the State argued the trial record—showing Dohmen moved toward the stopped vehicle and drew officers’ attention—supports the jury’s verdict.

The transcript and argument record reflect specific factual disputes the court must resolve: the distance Dohmen was ordered to move (counsel described orders relocating him 35–50 feet), whether officers intended to deprive Dohmen of audio recording, whether Dohmen spoke to or tried to communicate with the stopped vehicle’s occupants, and whether officers were diverted from their duties. The defense emphasized that the record shows Dohmen repeatedly said he would not insert himself into the stop and that Officer Manalia had been called only because someone was filming.

The court also heard tangled argument over preservation. Defense counsel said the municipal court received argument that Dohmen engaged in constitutionally protected conduct and that the issue was preserved for appeal; the State countered that defense counsel’s trial strategy waived a distinct as-applied constitutional motion and that plain-error review should not be invoked. Both sides acknowledged the municipal record could have been augmented if a pretrial as-applied motion had been filed.

The justices did not issue rulings at argument. They took the matter under advisement after roughly 75 minutes of oral argument and questioning. Any opinion will determine whether subsection 2 of the obstruction statute, the jury instructions used in this case, or the trial record leave the convictions vulnerable to reversal or remand for further proceedings.

If the court finds the statute or its application prevented a proper constitutional defense, it could reverse or remand; if it affirms, the court will have accepted the State’s sufficiency and preservation arguments. The decision will affect how Montana trial courts instruct juries and how officers may set physical boundaries around active law-enforcement activity when bystanders record.