Case Title: STATE v NANOFF

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1972-11-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12221 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 19 72 T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - LAWRENCE KAZOR NANOFF, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. J. Nelson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Berger, Anderson, S i n c l a i r and Murphy, Billings, Montana. Arnold A. Berger argued, Billings, Montana. For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. J. C. Weingartner, Deputy Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana. J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great F a l l s , Montana. Michael T. Greely, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Great F a l l s , Montana. Submitted : September 19, 1972 Decided : NOV - 9 1972 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from the d i s t r i c t court of the eighth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Cascade, Defendant, Lawrence Kazor Nanoff, was convicted of receiving stolen property. Approximately one month prior t o August 12, 1971, an un- i d e n t i f i e d informant n o t i f i e d Dectective Jack L . Macek of the Great F a l l s Police Department t h a t defendant was i n possession of some stolen property, specifically, some guns taken i n a burglary a t Valier, Montana. N o action was taken against defendant u n t i l August 12, 1971. O n t h a t date, a M r s . Edwin Olsen called the Great F a l l s Police Department t o report t h a t she had been swindled out of $14,000. She gave a description of the swindler, which Detective Macek thought resembled t h a t of defendant. Based on t h i s description, Detective Macek and another o f f i c e r went t o the defendant's residence and asked t o t a l k with him, Defendant allowed the police t o enter h i s residence and upon entering the police saw i n the l i v i n g room four apparently new television s e t s and some s t e ~ o e q u i p m e n t . The police then brought defendant t o the police s t a t i o n t o check out h i s story a s t o the reported swindle of Mrs. Olsen. Based on the information received from the informant t h a t defendant had stolen guns and on the personal observation of the television s e t s and stereo equipment, the police sought a search warrant covering defendant's residence. Detective Macek t e s t i f i e d before the presiding judge t h a t the police department had a description of guns taken from the burglary i n Valier, and a l s o a l i s t of other property taken from around t h e s t a t e , which included televisions and stereo equipment. The judge issued the warrant f o r the guns p a r t i c u l a r l y and, i f finding any of those guns, t h e police could then take any of the items they found which were on t h e i r lists. Upon arriving at defendant's residence, the police seized a quantity of guns and ammunition, plus the tel-evisions and stereo equipment. Defendant was charged and convicted of receiving stolen property and sentenced to ten years in the Montana state prison, with all but five years suspended, Defendant enumerates numerous errors on appeal. We will discuss the issue of the search warrant---whether there was probable cause for its issuance and if it was particular enough to meet statutory requirements. A motion to suppress the evidence seized was made, a hearing had, and the trial judge denied the motion. Here, denial of the motion to suppress is the determinative issue, Section 95-704, R.C.M. 1947, details when a search warrant may be issued and what it must contain: I1 Any judge may issue a search warrant upon the written application of any person that an offense has been committed, made under oath or affirmation before him which: " ( a ) States facts sufficient to show probable cause for issuance of the warrant, " ( b ) Particularly describes the place or things to be searched, and " ( c ) Particularly describes the things to be seized. 11 The statute is clear, it requires that there must be sufficient facts to show probable cause to issue the warrant, that the warrant be particular as to the place to be searched, and particular as to the things to be seized. The question here is whether this warrant meets Montana's statutory requirements. We first consider Detective Macek's deposition given prior to the issuance of the warrant. In the deposition, he gave these answers to questions asked by the judge : "Judge Nelson: Do you have a description of the guns taken out of Valier? "Officer Macek: Yes we have a description over at the s t a t i o n , Judge. "Judge Nelson: D o you know what kind of guns you would be looking f o r ? "Officer Macek: Yes, "Judge Nelson: D o you have a l i s t on the stolen guns you would be looking f o r ? D o you have a report on stolen TV's and stereos? "Officer Macek: I would think, Judge, t h a t these TV'S came from out of town * * *. "Judge Nelson: The guns came from the Valier burglary added). After t h i s testimony, a warrant was issued and signed by the judge, which i n pertinent p a r t , read: "PROOF BY COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT AND DEPOSITION, having been made t h i s date before m e by ARTHUR G. MATTEUCCI, Deputy County Attorney i n and f o r the County of Cascade, S t a t e of Montana, t h a t there a r e located c e r t a i n guns, stolen i n a Valier burglary and television s e t s and stereos stolen out ak town located a t the residence a t 4024 Ella Avenue, f r o n t apartment, Great F a l l s , Montana. See Deposition on f i l e herein f o r further d e t a i l s . I I (Emphasis added) A t a hearing on suppression of the evidence, Detective Macek t e s t i f i e d ; t h i s time s t a t i n g t h a t there was no burglary i n Valier. It i s c l e a r from t h i s l a t e r testimony t h a t there was no l i s t of any guns taken from a burglary i n Valier, Montana. It may be t r u e t h a t the police had a l i s t of guns stolen from small towns outside of Great F a l l s , but t h a t i s not what Detective Macek t e s t i f i e d t o a t the time evidence was given for the issuance of a warrant. The judge s p e c i f i c a l l y asked him i f he had such a l i s t , and he said " ~ e s " . The judge then t o l d him he could have a warrant f o r those guns, and i f the guns w e r e found, meaning the guns on the l i s t , then the o f f i c e r could a l s o take the television s e t s and stereos, W e do not know, from the record, what p a r t i c u l a r guns the o f f i c e r had authority t o seize. The p a r t i c u l a r guns were not l i s t e d on t h e warrant; the warrant says t o check the deposition; the deposition says the l i s t i s a t the police station. Here, the p a r t i c u l a r l i s t of guns was not placed i n the warranL, or anywhere e l s e . A warrant cannot simply s t a t e "certain guns", a s t h i s warrant did, and meet s t a t u t o r y requirements. It i s not an unreasonable burden t o require t h a t such a list be produced and placed i n the record. It i s c l e a r t h a t erroneous information was given t o the d i s t r i c t judge, and t h a t t h i s information provided the evidence upon which the warrant was issued. W e cannot uphold warrants which a r e not based on probable cause, and probable cause cannot be established by the use of incorrect information. The only basis f o r t h i s warrant was upon the pretext of looking for stolen guns. It was not issued because the o f f i c e r s saw four television s e t s and the stereo equipment. The d i s t r i c t judge stated: "You may have a search warrant. Particularly f o r these guns, and i f you find the guns or any of them, I think you a r e safe i n taking the TV's and stereos so t h a t you I1 can check them out. There i s no basis f o r an assertion t h a t the television s e t s and stereo equipment established probable cause f o r issuance of the warrant. From a l l the f a c t s appearing i n the record, it i s apparant the warrant was not based o r issued on probable cause, since the testimony given t o support the warrant was incorrect, therefore the items seized under the power of the warrant should have been suppressed. The s t a t e urges S t a t e v. Quigg, 155 Mont. 119, 126, 130,131, 467 P,2d 692, a s support f o r i t s position t h a t the search warrant was drawn with s u f f i c i e n t p a r t i c u l a r i t y . A review o f Quigg should demonstrate the d i s t i n c t i o n between these cases. I n w i g & a search warrant was approved which allowed the p ~ ~ l i c e t o seize: "Any . 2 2 c a l i b e r p i s t o l , a gold wristwatch with expansion band o r any other property o r evidence they might discover t h a t may connect t o the demise of Lee Robhins 9 : 9 ; * I f , appeal, t h i s Court stated: "+; + C a determination of p a r t i c u l a r description necessary t o meet statutory and constitutional requirements may be made only i n view of the f a c t s and circumstances of the p a r t i c u l a r case. JC * - i c I 1 In the context, and under the f a c t s and circum- stances then known t o the law enforcement o f f i c e r s , the language i s not, i n our view, language t h a t would be considered 'general'. The deceased had been robbed before s l a i n , h i s automobile stolen and burglarized. Exactly what was taken and with detailed exactness, only the deceased and the criminal o r criminals involved knew; but, papers, money, and a gold watch were shown t o be missing. Because of the r i f l e d condition of the automobile, the p o s s i b i l i t y of missing drug items was there but no p a r t i c u l a r s of what might be missing were known. 1 1 In Quigg the p a r t i c u l a r i t y of description, under the f a c t s and circumstances shown t o e x i s t , were s a t i s f i e d . But applied here, erroneous information supplied t o the magistrate a r e the f a c t s and circumstances d i c t a t i n g the opposite r e s u l t . Defendant r a i s e s other issues on appeal but we find i t not necessary t o discuss them since we have heretofore found t h a t the items seized under the warrant should have been suppressed a t the t r i a l . Defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property; t o support h i s conviction it i s absolutely necessary t o place i n t o evidence the items seized under the improper search. Without t h i s evidence, i t i s c l e a r there i s no case against defendant. Therefore, we order the conviction reversed and the cause dismissed, i Chief ~ h s t i c e *-------------------------- Associate Justices. M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly takes no part i n t h i s Opinion,