Case Title: STATE v HENDRICKSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 84-416

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-07-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 84-416 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T OF THB STATE O F M O N T A N A 1985 STATE OF M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs- RICKY BENDRICKSON, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and For t h e County of H i l l , The Honorable Chan E t t i e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O F RECORD: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana K i n Kradolfer argued, A s s t . Atty. General, Helena Ronald W. Smith, County Attorney, Havre, Montana For Respondent : Law O f f i c e of Frank Altman; Dan Boucher argued, Havre, Montana Submitted: ;lay 2, 1385 Decided: July 11 1985 Filed: Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr., d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. O n J u l y 2 6 , 1 9 8 4 , d e f e n d a n t , Ricky Hendrickson f i l e d a motion t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e found d u r i n g a s e a r c h o f h i s v e h i c l e , a l l e g i n g l a c k o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o s u p p o r t i s s u a n c e of t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t . Following a h e a r i n g i n t h e T w e l f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , d e f e n d a n t ' s motion was g r a n t e d on August 6 , 1984. The S t a t e a p p e a l s . W e f i n d t h a t t h e a p p l - i c a t i o n f o r t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t c o n t a i n s s u f f i c i e n t p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o s u p p o r t t h e i s s u a n c e o f a s e a r c h w a r r a n t and r e v e r s e t h e o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court. O n J a n u a r y 25, 1984, S g t . Gene Harada o f t h e Havre P o l i c e Department, a c t i n g i n r e s p o n s e t o a c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a n t ' s t i p , a p p l i e d f o r and r e c e i v e d a s e a r c h w a r r a n t from H i l l County J u s t i c e o f t h e Peace, Edward Vasecka. The informant was w e l l known t o t h e S e r g e a n t a s he had provided r e l - i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n t o t h e S e r g e a n t on s e v e r a l o t h e r o c c a s i o n s . S g t . Harada 's a f f i d a v i t r e q u e s t i n g i s s u a n c e o f a s e a r c h w a r r a n t s t a t e s : "An informant h a s c o n t a c t e d m e w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n concerning t h e above person. T h i s i n f o r m a n t h a s t o l d me t h a t t h e y a r e t r a n s p o r t i n g t h e above d r u g s t o G r e a t F a l l s t h i s a f t e r n o o n w i t h t h e i n t e n t o f s e l l i n g them. There i s a music c o n c e r t t o b e h e l d i n G r e a t F a l l s t h i s evening. "The i n f o r m a n t s t a t e s t h a t t h e l i s t e d s u s p e c t i s p l a n n i n g t o l e a v e t h e Havre Area between 1200 h r s . and 1500 h r s . on J a n . 25, 1984. "The informant knows t h e above l i s t e d s u s p e c t . The informant knows t h a t t h e s u s p e c t h a s used d r u g s and h a s been p r e s e n t when t h e s u s p e c t h a s used d r u g s . "The informant h a s been i n t h e company o f t h e s u s p e c t i n t h e v e r y r e c e n t p a s t and h a s h e a r d t h e s u s p e c t i n d i c a t e t o him t h a t he was going t o t r a n s - p o r t t h e s e d r u g s t o G r e a t Fal-1s today. " T h i s c o n f i d e n t i a l informant i s known t o m e . I have had c o n t a c t w i t h t h i s i n f o r m a n t on a number o f o t h e r o c c a s i o n s i n which t h e n [ s i c ] i n f o r m a n t h a s provided i n f o r m a t i o n concerning o t h e r c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n and h a s proved t o be r e l i a b l e . "The l i s t e d s u s p e c t h a s been under s u r v e i l l a n c e by t h e Havre P o l i c e Department and H i l l County S h e r i f f o f f i c e because o f o t h e r i n t e l l i g e n c e i n f o r m a t i o n r e c i e v e d [ s i c ] o v e r t h e p a s t s i x ( 6 ) weeks." The w a r r a n t a p p l i c a t i o n d e s c r i b e d t h e v e h i c l e t o b e searched a s "a 1978 Royal Blue Ford LTD I1 w i t h a r e a r s p o i l - er on t r u n k , mag wheels, double w h i t e s t r i p down b o t h s i d e s o f t h e v e h i c l e and h a s a 20 s t i c k e r i n r e a r window. T h i s i s r e g i s t u r e [ s i c ] t o Ricky Hendrickson." The p r o p e r t y a l l e g e d t o b e i n t h e c a r was "a l a r g e amount o f m a r i j u a n a . " That same d a y , S g t . Harada stopped d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r and searched it p u r s u a n t t o t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t . Two bags o f m a r i j u a n a (125.92 g r a m s ) , a p r e s c r i p t i o n b o t t l e t h o u g h t t o c o n t a i n LSD and two w a t e r p i p e s w e r e s e i z e d . Hendrickson was charged w i t h c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n o f dangerous d r u g s . I n s u p p o r t o f h i s motion t o s u p p r e s s , Hendrickson a l l e g - es t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t s u p p o r t i n g t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t f a i l e d t o set f o r t h s u f f i c i e n t f a c t s t o e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o i s s u e t h e w a r r a n t and t h a t t h e J u s t i c e o f t h e Peace r e l i e d on i n f o r m a t i o n o u t s i d e t h e f o u r c o r n e r s o f t h e a f f i d a v i t i n i s s u i n g t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t . S p e c i f i c a l l y , Hendrickson a l l e g - es t h a t t h e J u s t i c e o f t h e Peace c o n s i d e r e d unsworn, o r a l answers t o q u e s t i o n s posed t o S g t . Harada. A t t h e h e a r i n g on d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o s u p p r e s s , t h e J u s t i c e o f t h e Peace t e s t i f i e d t h a t he always q u e s t i o n s o f f i c e r s p r i o r t o i s s u i n g s e a r c h w a r r a n t s . H e f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t c o n t a i n e d p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o s u p p o r t t h e w a r r a n t , b u t t h a t h e would n e v e r have i s s u e d it w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n i n g t h e S e r g e a n t . Relying s o l e l y on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h i n t h e f o u r c o r n e r s o f S g t . H a r a d a ' s a f f i d a v i t , t h e t r i a l judge found a l a c k o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o i s s u e a s e a r c h war- r a n t and denied t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . The S t a t e o f Montana r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s i n i t s appea 1 : 1. Whether t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t was supported by p r o b a b l e cause? 2. Whether t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r r e a s o n a b l y and i n good f a i t h r e l i e d on t h e J u s t i c e o f t h e P e a c e ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e s o a s t o p r e c l u d e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e e x c l u - s i o n a r y r u l e ? The c u r r e n t test f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether an i n f o r m a n t ' s t i p e s t a b l i s h e s p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r i s s u a n c e o f a w a r r a n t i s found i n I l l i n o i s v. G a t e s ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 "[Wle conclude t h a t it i s w i s e r t o abandon t h e 'two-pronged test' e s t a b l i s h e d by o u r d e c i s i o n s i n A g u i l a r and S p i n e l l i . I n i t s p l a c e we r e a f f i r m t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a n a l y s i s t h a t t r a d i - t i o n a 1 1 ; h a s informed p r o b a b l e c a u s e determina- t i o n s . [ C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ] The t a s k o f t h e i s s u i n g m a g i s t r a t e i-s simply t o make a p r a c t i c a l , common-sense d e c i s i o n whether, g i v e n a l l t h e cir- cumstances s e t f o r t h i n t h e a f f i d a v i t b e f o r e him, i n c l u d i n g t h e v e r a c i t y f and ' b a s i s o f knowledge ' of p e r s o n s s u p p l y i n g h e a r s a y i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e r e i s a f a i r p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t contraband o r evidence o f a crime w i l l be found i n a p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e . And t h e d u t y o f a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t i s simply t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e m a g i s t r a t e had a ' s u b s t a n t i a l b a s i s f o r . . . conclud [ i n g ] t h a t p r o b a b l e c a u s e e x i s t e d . J o n e s v. United S t a t e s , s u p r a , 362 U.S., a t 271, 80 - S.Ct., a t 736." ( f o o t n o t e o m i t t e d ) T h i s " t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s " test h a s been adopted i n t h i s S t a t e . S t a t e v . O ' N e i l l (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 679 P.2d 760, 41 St.Rep. 420. It completely r e p l a c e s t h e m o r e s t r i n g e n t , two-prong A g u i l a r - S p i n e l l i test. F o r d i s c u s s i o n s of t h a t test, see A g u i l a r v. Texas ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 378 U.S. 1.08, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1 2 L.Ed.2d 723; S p i n e l l i v. United S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 2 1 L.Ed.2d 637; and S t a t e v. E r l e r (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 672 P.2d 624, 40 St.Rep. 1915. The i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n Sgt. H a r a d a ' s a f f i d a v i t s a t i s f i e s t h e p r o b a b l e c a u s e test set f o r t h i n G a t e s , s u p r a . It i n c l u d e s i n f o r m a t i o n concerning t h e p l a c e where t h e d r u g s could b e found; t h e d a t e and t i m e when t h e d r u g s could b e found; t h e kind o f d r u g s involved; t h e i n t e n d e d u s e o f t h e drugs; a n a c c u r a t e d e s c r i p t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r ; and a n a c c u r a t e d e s c r i p t i o n o f d e f e n d a n t ' s t r a v e l p l a n s . It a1 s o s t a t e s t h a t informant had been p r e s e n t when t h e d e f e n d a n t used d r u g s ; t h a t d e f e n d a n t p e r s o n a l l y t o l d informant he was going t o t r a n s p o r t d r u g s t o G r e a t F a l l s on J a n u a r y 25, 1984; and t h a t informant was b e l i e v e d r e l i a b l e because o f r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n p r e v i o u s l y provided by him t o t h e p o l i c e . Defendant s u g g e s t s t h a t p r o b a b l e c a u s e i s n o t e s t a b - l i s h e d i n t h i s c a s e f o r numerous r e a s o n s . The i n f o r m a n t d i d n o t a d e q u a t e l y e x p l a i n "they" when s t a t i n g t h a t " t h e y a r e going t o t a k e t h e d r u g s t o G r e a t F a l l s . " The i n f o r m a n t d i d n o t c l a i m t o have s e e n t h e d r u g s , n o r d i d he know where i n t h e c a r t h e d r u g s could b e found. The i n f o r m a n t provided n o i n f o r m a t i o n i n d i c a t i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t was a r e t a i l e r , whole- s a l e r o r d i s t r i b u t o r o f marijuana. And f i n a l l y , t h e u s e o f t h e t e r m " i n d i c a t e " i n "informant . . . h a s heard t h e s u s p e c t i n d i c a t e 1 ' i s t o o broad. To g i v e c r e d e n c e t o d e f e n d a n t ' s argument would b e t o p l a c e "undue a t t e n t i o n . . . on i s o l a t e d i s s u e s t h a t c a n n o t s e n s i b l y b e d i v o r c e d from t h e o t h e r f a c t s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e . " G a t e s , 462 U.S. a t 234-235, 103 S.Ct. a t 2330, 76 L.Ed.2d a t 545-546. The " t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , " from t h e f a c e of S g t . Harada ' s a f f i d a v i t , c l e a r l y s u p p o r t s a f i n d i n g o f proba- b l e cause. W e approve t h e t r i a l j u d g e ' s r e f u s a l t o look beyond t h e f o u r c o r n e r s o f t h a t a f f i d a v i t . No i n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d d u r i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n between t h e J u s t i c e o f t h e Peace and Sgt. Harada may b e used t o d e t e r m i n e p r o b a b l e c a u s e because t h e S e r g e a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t s w e r e unsworn, unsigned and n o t a p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d . S t a t e e x rel. Townsend v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 357, 363, 543 P.2d 1 9 3 , 196. he o c c u r r e n c e o f t h a t c o n v e r s a t i o n d o e s n o t a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t t h e f i n d i n g t h a t p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o i s s u e a s e a r c h w a r r a n t e x i s t s b e c a u s e t h a t f i n d i n g rests s o l e l y on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e a f f i d a v i t . S t a t e v . Thomson ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 158, 162, 545 P.2d 1070, 1072. However, w e d i s a p p r o v e o f what a p p e a r s t o b e t h e h a b i t o f t h i s J u s t i c e o f t h e P e a c e t o c o n d u c t s u c h c o n v e r s a t i o n s . S i n c e we f i n d t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t t o b e s u p p o r t e d by p r o b a b l e c a u s e c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n t h e f o u r c o r n e r s o f S g t . H a r a d a ' s a f f i d a v i t , it i s u n n e c e s s a r y t o d i s c u s s t h e s e c o n d , "good f a i t h " i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e S t a t e . Reversed and remanded f o r t r i a l . t W e c o n c u r : J u s t i c e s Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, dissenting: It is a disservice to the District Judge, the Honorable Chan Ettien, not to discuss the reasons on which he found that the warrant in this case was improvidently issued. In his written memorandum, after stating his observation respecting the ambiguities of the application for warrant, Zudge Ettien noted: "There is not a smidgeon of information in the application purportedly or impliedly from the surveillance. One could gather that there was substantial surveillance of Defendant's residence and movements. One must presume no suspicions of criminal action surf aced, particularly of trafficking, which would have been of material underlying circumstance. "Judge Vasecka made it clear, during examination that he included his oral interrogation of Harada in his decision to issue the warrant. That he relied. on Harada's statements, not on the informant's as to the information in the appl-ication. "Judge Vasecka made it clear also that the critical basis for his issuance of the writ was the oral conversations with Ha-rada at the time Harada applied. Admittedly, this conversation was oral, not under oath, and had not been reduced to writing and made a part of the original application. Thompson v. stad ad (1979) 182 M - 1 1 9 : state -- ex re1 Townsend (1975) . 168 Mont 357. "The application does not (other than allegation of Defendant's personal use) establish that the crime charged has been committed or is being committed. We have only the unsubstantiated statement that there is a large quantity of marijuana in Defendant's car . . ." Under our state constitution, Article 11, Section 11, it is prescribed that no warrant to search any place or thing shall issue "without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced t . o writing." Judge Ettien followed the constitution in determining that the information on which Judge Vasecka relied. to issue the warrant had not been reduced to writing. Therefore the warrant was invalid. All the esoteric discussion in the majority opinion respecting the decision in Illinois v. Gates, supra, Jones v. United States, et all have no bearing on this case. It is a simple matter that the justice of the peace did not rely on the four-corners of the application, but instead depended on unsworn information from the constable to issue the warrant for search. Judge Ettj-en was correct in his decision. I would affirm. Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., concurs with the foregoing dissent.