Case Title: STATE v JENSEN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-08-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
PJo. 84-538 IN THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A 1985 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs- DELBERT JEPJSEN , Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL F R O M : 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 f o r t h e County of H i l l , The Honorable Chan E t t i e n , Judge presiding. C O U P S S E L O F RECORD: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana James Scheier argued, A s s t . Atty. General, Helena Ronald W. Smith, County Attorney, Havre, Montana Edward Corrigan, Deputy County Attorney, Havre For Respondent : Law O f f i c e s of Frank Altman; Ivan E v i l s i z e r argued, Havre, Montana - Submitted: May 231 1985 Decided: August 5 , 1985 Filed: AUG 6 -- 1985 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e opinion o f t h e Court. The S t a t e a p p e a l s from a p r e - t r i a l o r d e r s u p p r e s s i n g evidence s e i z e d i n a s e a r c h of D e l b e r t J e n s e n ' s home by law enforcement o f f i c e r s w i t h a s e a r c h warrant. The District Court determined t h a t t h e J u s t i c e o f t h e Peace i s s u e d t h e warrant without probable cause. W e f i n d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n contained s u f f i c i e n t probable cause t o support t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e s e a r c h warrant. W e 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. The i s s u e s on appeal a r e : 1. Was t h e s e a r c h warrant based upon probable cause? 2. If n o t , should t h e i l l e g a l l y s e i z e d evidence be admissible under t h e "good f a i t h exception1' t o t h e exclusionary r u l e ? On A p r i l 24, 1984, H i l l County Deputy S h e r i f f Mark S t o l e n a p p l i e d t o J u s t i c e of t h e Peace Edward G. Vesecka, Jr., f o r a s e a r c h warrant f o r a t r a i l e r a t 936 2nd S t r e e t North, Havre , Montana. Deputy S t o l e n ' s a f f i d a v i t i n support o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s e t f o r t h t h e following: "On April 1 7 , 1984, Dorothy Cochran, of 2865 7 t h S t r e e t E a s t , Havre, Montana, r e p o r t e d t o t h e H i l l County S h e r i f f ' s Department t h e t h e f t o f a yellow, McCullough c h a i n saw, a Winchester 30-30 c a l i b e r lever a c t i o n r i f l e , a Marlin 30-30 c a l i b e r lever a c t i o n r i f l e , a H & R 10 gauge s i n g l e s h o t shotgun and t a n canvas bag, and a Marlin .22 c a l i b e r r i f l e . "On A p r i l 1 8 , 1984, an i n d i v i d u a l volunteered t o M s . Cochran t h a t he had been involved i n t h e t h e f t o f h e r guns and property. H e a l s o informed h e r t h a t some o f t h e i t e m s had been pawned, while h e r guns had been t r a d e d f o r drugs. Subsequently, M s . Cochran discovered a t t h e R-Mew Pawn Shop, Havre, Montana, t h e c h a i n saw she had p r e v i o u s l y r e p o r t e d s t o l e n a s w e l l a s o t h e r i t e m s o f p e r s o n a l property. "On A p r i l 20, 1984, M s . Cochranls informer r e t u r n e d t o h e r one o f t h e r i f l e s he had s t o l e n and ex- changed f o r drugs. H e a l s o t o l d h e r t h e exchange had taken p l a c e a t a white t r a i l e r , 936 2nd S t r e e t North, Havre, Montana. A t t h a t l o c a t i o n , M s . Cochran confronted an i n d i v i d u a l named Ben and was given h e r s t o l e n 30-30 Winchester r i f l e . M s . Cochran's .22 c a l i b e r r i f l e and Merlin [ s i c ] 30-30 c a l i b e r r i f l e have n o t y e t been recovered. "Ms. Cochran a l s o learned from h e r informant t h a t h e r shotgun had been t r a d e d f o r $40.00 worth o f Columbian marijuana. M s . Cochran has a l s o been t o l d by an i n d i v i d u a l named Sonny, who s t a y s w i t h V i r g i n i a Bernardi, t h a t he had t r a d e d a t t h e trail- er a t 936 2nd S t r e e t North, Havre, Montana, a 30-30 r i f l e f o r $105.00 worth o f marijuana. "On A p r i l 10, 1984, Ron Crocker, 926 2nd S t r e e t North, Havre, Montana, complained t o t h e H i l l County S h e r i f f ' s Department t h a t he b e l i e v e d Delbert Jensen, Ben Morris, and Penny Genger, r e s i d e n t s o f a t r a i l e r on 2nd S t r e e t North, Havre, Montana, e a s t o f h i s home, w e r e s e l l i n g drugs. I n t h e l a s t week o f March, 1984, M r . Crocker had witnessed an exchange a t t h a t l o c a t i o n o f money and what he b e l i e v e d t o be marijuana. M r . Crocker a l s o heard, on a n o t h e r occasion, one 13 o r 1 4 y e a r o l d boy s a y t o a n o t h e r who had gone t o Delbert J e n s e n ' s t r a i l e r , ' d i d you g e t t h e s t u f f ? ' M r . Crocker a l s o complained t h a t a -large amount o f t r a f f i c had been stopping, on a d a i l y b a s i s , a t D e l b e r t J e n s e n ' s t r a i l e r ; t h a t a v e h i c l e ' s motor o f t e n would be l e f t running w h i l e an occupant went i n t o t h e t r a i l e r f o r a s h o r t t i m e and then l e f t . "On A p r i l 21, 1984, a concerned c i t i z e n a l s o com- p l a i n e d about heavy t r a f f i c on 2nd S t r e e t North, Havre, Montana; t h a t h e r c a t had almost been h i t by a c a r d r i v e n by an i n d i v i d u a l d e s c r i b e d t o h e r by neighborhood k i d s a s a 'dope d e a l e r . ' Neighborhood k i d s a l s o t o l d h e r t h i s 'dope d e a l e r ' bought h i s drugs from people on 2nd S t r e e t North. " I , Mark S t o l e n , have been a law enforcement o f f i - cer f o r 12 y e a r s . It has been m y experience t h a t t h e e v e n t s and unusual t r a f f i c d e s c r i b e d by Ron Crocker and 'concerned c i t i z e n s ' a r e i n d i c a t i v e o f t r a n s a c t i o n s i n dangerous drugs. I have known M s . Cochran f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s and b e l i e v e h e r s t a t e - ments a r e t r u s t w o r t h y and v a l u a b l e . It h a s a l s o been m y experience t h a t s t a t e m e n t s o f concerned c i t i z e n s , p e r s o n a l l y uninvolved, a r e r e l i a b l e and important l e a d s t o follow." Based upon Deputy S t o l e n ' s a p p l i c a t i o n and supporting a f f i d a - v i t , t h e J u s t i c e o f t h e Peace i s s u e d a s e a r c h w a r r a n t f o r d e f e n d a n t ' s t r a i l e r . No o t h e r sworn testimony o r evidence was presented t o t h e J u s t i c e o f t h e Peace p r i o r t o issuance o f t h e warrant. O n A p r i l 2 7 , 1984, H i l l County Deputy S h e r i f f s , Havre C i t y P o l i c e and o f f i c i a l s from t h e S t a t e Department o f F i s h , W i l d l i f e and Parks searched d e f e n d a n t ' s residence. They s e i z e d more t h a n 60 grams o f marijuana, drug p a r a p h e r n a l i a , cocaine and a r i f l e . Defendant J e n s e n was a r r e s t e d and charged w i t h t h e f t , criminal s a l e o f dangerous drugs (mari- j u a n a ) , c r i m i n a l possession o f dangerous drugs ( m a r i j u a n a ) , criminal possession of paraphernalia, and criminal possession of dangerous drugs (cocaine). He pled not guilty to each count. Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence seized during the search based upon lack of suffi- cient facts in the application to show probable cause for issuance of the warrant. Following a hearing on the motion and relying solely on the information contained within the four corners of the application, the District Court found a lack of probable cause and granted defendant's motion. The State appeals. To determine whether there was probable cause to issue the search warrant, we must look only at the information contained in the four corners of the application. State v. Isom (1982), 196 Mont. 330, 641 P.2d 417. The test for determining whether an informant's tip establishes probable cause for issuance of a search warrant is the "totality of the circumstances" test set forth in Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213, 238-39: "[Wle conclude that it is wiser to abandon the 'two-pronged test' established by our decisions in ~ ~ u i l a r and Spinelli. In its place we reaffirm the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis that tradi- tionally has informed probable-cause determina- tions. The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the 'veracity' and 'basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magis- trate had a 'substantial basis for . . . conclud [ing] ' that probable cause existed. " (cita- tions omitted) This "totality-of-the-circumstances" analysis was adopted in Montana in 1983. State v. Kelly (Mont. 1983), 668 P.2d 1032, The issuing magistrate must only determine that there is a probability, not a prima facie showing of criminal activi- ty. State v. O'Neill (Mont. 1984), 679 P.2d 760, 764, 41 St.Rep. 420, 423. The d u t y o f a reviewing c o u r t i s simply t o ensure 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 con- c l u d i n g t h a t probable cause 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 - ed. S t a t e v. E r l e r (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 672 P.2d 624, 627, 40 St.Rep. 1915, 1918. W e f i n d t h a t t h e information contained i n Deputy S t o l e n ' s a f f i d a v i t provides a s u b s t a n t i a 1 b a s i s f o r conclud- i n g t h a t t h e r e was probable cause t o i s s u e t h e s e a r c h warrant. The a f f i d a v i t d e s c r i b e d t h e p l a c e where s t o l e n p r o p e r t y had been exchanged f o r drugs and t h e kind o f drugs involved i n t h e exchange. The a f f i d a v i t f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t : " A t t h a t l o c a t i o n , M s . Cochran confronted an i n d i v i d u a l named Ben and was given h e r s t o l e n 30-30 Winchester rifle." R e t r i e v a l o f t h e s t o l e n r i f l e by t h e citizen-informant is s t r o n g corrobo- r a t i o n o f h e r r e l i a b i l i t y . M s . Cochran' s r e l i a b i l i t y is f u r t h e r b u t t r e s s e d by Deputy S t o l e n ' s statement t h a t he had known h e r " f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s and b e l i e v e [dl h e r s t a t e m e n t s a r e t r u s t w o r t h y and valuable." The a f f i d a v i t f u r t h e r d e s c r i b e s information given by two o t h e r citizen-informants who complained t h a t r e s i d e n t s o f t h e t r a i l e r w e r e s e l l i n g drugs and t h a t , a s a r e s u l t , t h e r e was heavy? d a i l y t r a f f i c on t h e i r street. Informant Crocker complained t h a t he had witnessed an exchange o f money f o r what he b e l i e v e d t o be marijuana a t t h e t r a i l e r and, on another occasion, he had overheard a boy ask a companion r e t u r n i n g from t h e t r a i l e r , "Did you g e t t h e s t u f f ? " This information c o r r o b o r a t e s M s . Cochran's t i p t h a t s t o l e n prop- e r t y had been exchanged f o r marijuana a t t h e t r a i l e r . M r . Crocker a l s o complained about t h e l a r g e amount o f t r a f f i c stopping d a i l y a t t h e t r a i l e r , o f t e n w i t h motors l e f t running. Crocker's information r e g a r d i n g t h e unusually l a r g e amount o f t r a f f i c a t t h e t r a i l e r was corroborated by a n o t h e r c i t i z e n - i n f o r m a n t ' s complaint t h a t t h e r e was heavy t r a f f i c and h e r c a t was almost h i t by a c a r d r i v e n by an i n d i v i d u a l whom neighborhood c h i l d r e n d e s c r i b e d a s a "dope d e a l e r . " Deputy S t o l e n ' s a f f i d a v i t a l s o s t a t e s t h a t he had been a law enforcement o f f i c e r f o r twelve y e a r s and t h a t , i n h i s e x p e r i - ence, t h e e v e n t s and unusual t r a f f i c described by t h e s e concerned c i t i z e n s a r e i n d i c a t i v e o f t r a n s a c t i o n s i n danger- ous drugs. I n Montana, t h e citizen-informant i s accepted a s r e l i a b l e . Kelly, 668 P.2d a t 1043, 40 St.Rep. a t 1411, c i t i n g S t a t e v. L e i s t i k o (1978), 176 Mont. 434, 578 P.2d 1161. C r i m e v i c t i m Dorothy Cochran was t h e primary citizen-informant. Deputy S t o l e n had known h e r f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s and believed h e r t o be trustworthy. The o t h e r c i t i z e n - i n f o r m a n t s witnessed a c t i v i t i e s t h a t corroborated M s . Cochran's information. Additional hearsay information i n t h e a f f i d a v i t came from t i p s t e r s who made admissions a g a i n s t t h e i r own penal interests. T h i s Court h a s upheld t h e i s s u a n c e o f s e a r c h w a r r a n t s where an informant has seen o r p a r t i c i p a t e d i n c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y o r even i n some innocent a c t i v i t y t h a t , given a l l t h e circumstances, s u p p o r t s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y . See S t a t e v. O f N e i l l (Mont. 1984), 679 P.2d 760, 4 1 St.Rep. 420; S t a t e v. Kelly (Mont. 1983), 668 P.2d 1032, 40 St.Rep. 1400. R e l i a b l e hearsay information may be considered t o e s t a b l i s h probable cause. Kelly, 668 P.2d a t 1043, 40 St.Rep. a t 1 4 1 1 . R e l i a b i l i t y may be deduced from c o r r o b o r a t i v e evidence o r surrounding f a c t s t h a t possess an i n t e r n a l coherence t h a t g i v e s weight t o t h e whole and s u p p o r t s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t evidence o f a c r i m e w i l l be found i n a p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e . Massachusetts v. Upton (1984), U.S. , 104 S.Ct. 2085, 2088. W e f i n d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n c o n t a i n s an adequate b a s i s f o r concluding t h e r e was a f a i r p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t evidence o f a crime would be found a t t h e Jensen t r a i l e r . W e hold t h a t t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e s e a r c h warrant was supported by probable cause. Having found t h e warrant t o be v a l i d , it i s unnecessary t o d i s c u s s t h e second i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e S t a t e r e g a r d i n g t h e "good f a i t h exception" t o t h e e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e . The o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s r e v e r s e d , and t h i s cause is remanded f o r t r i a l . W e concur: