Case Title: STRUNG v ANDERSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-02-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12813 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T OF T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 NORMAN S T R U N G and PRISCILLA STRUNG, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, L. D. W . ANDERSON, HANK FEDDES , C A R L SMITH and LES GEE, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Berger, Anderson, S i n c l a i r and Murphy, B i l l i n g s , Montana James J. S i n c l a i r argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondents : Corette, Smith and Dean, Butte, Montana Dolphy 0 . Pohlman, Jr. argued, and Kendrick Smith, appeared, Butte, Montana Submitted: January 13, 1975 Decided: FEB 11 1975 z - --Ek c 1 2,'b F i l e d : M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County, i n favor of defendants, respond- e n t s here. Appellants a r e r e s i d e n t s of G a l l a t i n County. Respond- e n t s a r e L.D.W. Anderson, then s h e r i f f of G a l l a t i n County and t h r e e deputy s h e r i f f s of t h a t county. O n J u l y 2 3 , 1967, a search warrant was issued a t t h e request of t h e Bozeman chief of p o l i c e and a t t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e G a l l a t i n County attorney, by a j u s t i c e of t h e peace, d i r e c t i n g respondents and peace o f f i c e r s t o search t h e home of appellants Norman Strung and Priscilla Strung. Respondents had nothing t o do with t h e inves- t i g a t i v e work preparatory t o requesting t h e search warrant, nor d i d they p a r t i c i p a t e i n any way i n obtaining t h e warrant. It was l a t e r determined t h a t t h e search warrant was erroneously obtained from a j u s t i c e of t h e peace, not from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Respondents' depositions reveal they were accompanied by t h e county attorney and h i s s t a f f along with c i t y policemen i n two searches f o r drugs. None of respondents, though present, d i d any of t h e a r r e s t i n g of individuals involved but a p p e l l a n t Strungs were imprisoned a t t h e county j a i l where they were held f o r several days u n t i l b a i l could be arranged a t t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e county attorney. Appellants were charged with t h e pos- session of dangerous drugs, which charge was dismissed by t h e county attorney on October 2 1 , 1967. Thereafter a p p e l l a n t s brought s u i t a g a i n s t respondents f o r f a l s e a r r e s t and f a l s e i m - prisonment. The s o l e i s s u e here is whether o r not t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t erred i n granting respondents' motion f o r summary judgment. Appellants note t h a t t h e warrant involved was issued pur- suant t o s e c t i o n 54-112, R.C.M. 1947 (since repealed). That ~ c a t u t e w a s a unique s t a t u t e governing t h e i s s u a n c e of s e a r c h wilrrants i n n a r c o t i c c a s e s . It provided i n p a r t : " I f upon t h e sworn complaint of any person, it s h a l l be made t o appear t o any judge of t h e d i s - t r i c t c o u r t t h a t t h e r e i s probable cause t o b e l i e v e t h a t n a r c o t i c drugs a r e being * * * k e P t c o n t r a r y t o law, such judge s h a l l * * * i s s u e a warrant d i r e c t e d t o any peace o f f i c e r i n t h e county commanding him t o s e a r c h t h e premises l e s i g n e d and d e s c r i b e d i n such complaint and warrant, and t o s e i z e a l l n a r c o t i c drugs t h e r e found * * *. N o warrant s h a l l i s s u e t o s e a r c h a p r i v a t e dwel-ling occupied a s such * * *." Appellants argue t h a t from t h e v e r y f a c e of t h e w a r r a n t , it w a s obvious t h e j u s t i c e o f t h e peace had exceeded h i s j u r i s - d i c t i o n i n i s s u i n g t h e warrant and t h a t respondent peace o f f i c e r s were bound t o know t h a t such a s e a r c h warrant was v o i d and t h a t i f they executed t h e same t h e y d i d s o a t t h e i r p e r i l . Having been placed i n j a i l , a p p e l l a n t s argue t h e o n l y defense t o t h i s a c t i o n o f f a l s e imprisonment was t h a t it was done (1) based on t h e a d v i c e of t h e county a t t o r n e y and ( 2 ) pursuant t o a s e a r c h w a r r a n t , and t h e s e a r e q u e s t i o n s of f a c t s o summary judgment should n o t have i s s u e d . F i r s t , w e n o t e t h e s e a r c h warrant w a s v a l i d on i t s f a c e a s t o t h e respondent peace o f f i c e r s when it was shown t o them by t h e county a t t o r n e y when he ordered them t o a s s i s t i n t h e search. I t was n o t u n t i l over a y e a r and a h a l f l a t e r when t h i s Court i n S t a t e v. Langan, 1 5 1 Mont. 558, 445 P.2d 565, held t h a t only a d i s t r i c t c o u r t judge could i s s u e a s e a r c h warrant f o r n a r c o t i c s , t h a t t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e s e a r c h warrant i n t h e i n s t a n t case w a s determined. It i s t h i s C o u r t ' s opinion t h a t it would p u t t o o g r e a t a burden on law enforcement o f f i c e r s t o make them s u b j e c t t o damages every t i m e t h e y m i s c a l c u l a t e d i n what a c o u r t of l a s t r e s o r t would determine c o n s t i t u t e d a n i n v a s i o n of con- s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . Under a f a c t s i t u a t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t i n Daly v. Pedersen, 278 F.Supp. 88, 93, (D.Minn. 1967) had t h i s t o say regarding a c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n a g a i n s t two s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e r s : " ' I t would r e q u i r e law enforcement o f f i c e r s t o respond i n damages every t i m e they miscalculated i n regard t o what a c o u r t of l a s t r e s o r t would determine c o n s t i t u t e d an invasion of c o n s t i t u - t i o n a l r i g h t s , even where, a s here, a t r i a l judge-- more learned i n t h e law than a p o l i c e officer-- held t h a t no such v i o l a t i o n occurred. "'So long a s t h e defendant's conduct stemmed from h i s reasonable b e l i e f a s t o t h e require- ments of t h e law and was not unreasonable i n any other way, he cannot be held responsible--under t h e standard of l i a b i l i t y set f o r t h i n Monroe v. Pape--for t h e deprivation of p l a i n t i f f ' s r i g h t s . "No one has a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o be f r e e from a law o f f i c e r ' s honest misunderstanding of t h e law o r f a c t s i n making an a r r e s t q 1 . [Citing case] Thus, t h e a c t i o n of a p o l i c e o f f i c e r oannot be t o r t i o u s when t h e o f f i c e r proceeds on t h e b a s i s of h i s reasonable, good f a i t h under- standing of t h e law and does not a c t with un- reasonable violence o r subject t h e c i t i z e n t o unusual indignity. The f a c t s alleged i n t h e com- p l a i n t demonstrate conclusively t h a t t h e defend- a n t could not reasonably have forseen t h a t a deprivation of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s might have r e s u l t e d from h i s conduct. Under such circum- stances, t h e complaint must be dismissed.'" See also: Harri v. Isaac, 1 1 1 Mont. 152, 107 P.2d 137; Wheeler v. Moe, 163 Mont. 154, 515 P.2d 679, 30 St.Rep. 985; Meinecke v. McFarland, 122 Mont. 515, 206 P.2d 1 0 1 2 . Here, t h e search warrant was prepared and obtained by t h e county attorney; s e r v i c e w a s not made by respondents though they p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e r a i d ; they were not involved i n a p p e l l a n t s ' a r r e s t although respondent Anderson, as s h e r i f f , was s t a t u t o r i l y bound t o hold appellants i n j a i l u n t i l they made bond. There being no genuine i s s u e a s t o any material f a c t w e find t h e d i s t r i c t court properly granted summary judgment. Justices