Title: STATE EX REL TOWNSEND v DIST COUR

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13154 TN T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 STATE O F M O N T A N A ex re1 . , RICHARD D. TOWNSEND, Relator, T H E DISTRICT C O U R T O F T H E F O U R T H JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , I n and f o r t h e County of Ravalli and t h e H O N O R A B L E JACK L. GREEN, presiding Judge, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: For Relator : Milodragovich, Dale and Dye, Missoula , Montana Michael J. Milodragovich argued, Missoula , Montana For Respondents : Douglas Harkin argued, Hamilton, Montana Submitted: September 30, 1975 Decided : DEC 1 3975 Filed: '!LL - 9 / b M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court . Relator Richard D. Townsend i s charged by Information i n Ravalli County with t h e offense of criminal s a l e of dangerous drugs, a felony under section 54-132, R.C.M. 1947. The Informa- tion r e s u l t s from the seizure of forty-two marijuana plants and assorted paraphenalia by county deputy s h e r i f f s during a search March 31, 1975, of r e l a t o r ' s apparent place of residence. Prior t o the search, a supportive warrant was issued by a l o c a l magis- t r a t e . The v a l i d i t y of t h a t warrant was challenged by a motion t o suppress under section 95-1805, R.C.M. 1947. Hearing was held on M a y 23, 1975 i n the d i s t r i c t court and the motion t o suppress was denied. A s the denial of t h i s motion i s not an appealable order, r e l a t o r p e t i t i o n s t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of supervisory control, suppressing a l l evidence, written o r o r a l , which was ob- tained from him i n connection with t h i s search. I n determining t h e f a c t s upon which the magistrate r e l i e d t o find probable cause f o r the contested warrant, we consider two sources - I ) the application i t s e l f , and 2) c e r t a i n responses t o o r a l inquiry of the o f f i c e r made a t the time of the submission of the application. Except f o r the standard descriptions of the items t o be seized and the place t o be searched, the only factual allegations made i n t h e application were: "An informant has advised s h e r i f f ' s Deputies t h a t he has seen several marijuana plants growing inside the house. A second informant advised s h e r i f f ' s Deputies t h a t he saw marijuana plants growing inside the house. The second informant has had personal ex erience with the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of growing marijuana. Pt The quoced paragraph constitutes the only written statement of f a c t s submitted t o the magistrate. A t the suppression hearing, it was revealed that the magistrate propounded several o r a l questions co the applying o f f i c e r before authorizing the warrant. According t o the o f f i c e r ' s testimony, these questions produced t h i s addi- t i o n a l information; "Q. And apparently i f I understand your testimony correctly, those things which you deemed t o be impor- t a n t and which h u l d be brought t o the ~ u d g e ' s atten- tion were t h a t two informants allegedly saw marihuana i n Richard own send's house; t h a t one of them allegedly could i d e n t i f y marihuana; t h a t the f i r s t had i d e n t i f i e d a correlation between what he saw and the photograph t h a t you showed him and t h a t both individuals were upstanding c i t i z e n s ; i s t h a t correct? "A. It sounds c o r r e c t , yes sir. I I It i s undisputed t h a t there was no court reporter present during t h i s discussion, no written notes were made o r subscribed t o by the applicant, and t h a t no other writing was submitted t o the magistrate i n support of the allegation t h a t probable cause existed. A t the suppression hearing, it was revealed t h a t the first informant had seen the marijuana plants about two months p r i o r t o the issuance of the warrant, and the second informant had seen the plants about three weeks p r i o r t o the issuance of the warrant. This did not appear on the a f f i d a v i t , nor was it brought t o the attention ox the magistrate. A dispositive ruling i n t h i s case can be achieved through the determination of two r e l a t e d issues: 1) Whether the a f f i d a v i t contained f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t f o r a magistrate t o determine whether probable cause existed, and 2) whether o r a l statements made t o the magistrate a t the time of the submission of the application may be used t o cure a d e f i c i e n t a f f i d a v i t . The requirement t h a t t h e magistrate decide the existence of probable cause on the basis of f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t t o allow an independent determination, i s imposed by Montana law t o ensure t h a t some neutral and detached evaluation is interposed between those who investigate crime and the ordinary c i t i z e n . This principle was discussed i n Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L ed 436, 440: "The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often i s not grasped by zealous o f f i c e r s , is not t h a t it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. I t s protection consists i n requiring t h a t those inferences be drawn by a n e u t r a l and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the o f f i c e r engaged i n the often competitive enterprise of f e r r e t i n g out crime. 11 It cannot be disputed t h a t hearsay information may be considered t o e s t a b l i s h probable cause. S t a t e v. Paulson, M o n t . , 538 P.2d 339, 32 St.Rep. 786; K e r v. California, 374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L ed 2d 726,739; Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L ed 2d 327. But when hearsay information forms the j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a finding of probable cause and t h e issuance of a search warrant, the two-pronged t e s t s e t out i n Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L ed 2d 723, must be applied and s a t i s f i e d : "* * * the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant con- cluded t h a t the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of t h e underlying circumstances from which the o f f i c e r concluded t h a t the informant. whose i d e n t i t y need not be disclosed, see Rugendorf ; . united States, 376 U.S. 528, was 'credible' o r h i s information 'reliable! " See also: Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L ed 2d 637. W e find the warrant i n t h i s case t o be f a t a l l y d e f i c i e n t i n several areas. F i r s t , there i s no statement explaining some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded t h a t the plants were i n the house o r t h a t r e l a t o r was i n some way connected t o those plants. The mere f a c t t h a t a person is on premises where o f f i c e r s have reason t o believe there a r e drugs does n o t , by i t s e l f , j u s t i f y an a r r e s t o r search of h i s person. S t a t e ex r e l . Glantz v. D i s t r i c t Court, 154 Mont. 132, 139, 461 P.2d 193, and cases c i t e d therein. Similarly, the application contains no f a c t t h a t would connect r e l a t o r t o the criminal a c t i v i t y . Without the showing of some criminal a c t i v i t y on t h e part of Townsend, there can be no probable cause. State ex r e l . Garris v. Wilson, 162 Mont. 256, 260, 511 P.2d 15. The second p a r t of t h e Aguilar - S p i n e l l i test mandates t h a t the existence of probable cause be established only through a credible informant with r e l i a b l e information. Again, the magistrate must be informed of some underlying circumstances which demonstrate t h a t c r e d i b i l i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y . The a f f i d a v i t under scrutiny here, contains statements which a r e a t best merely conclusory, and therefore i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h probable cause. Additionally, t h e a f f i d a v i t is d e f i c i e n t i n t h a t it f a i l s t o aver the time when the a f f i a n t received the information. Research has not revealed a single case where the warrant was upheld without a statement showing the time when t h e f a c t s o r events r e l i e d upon occurred. A n a f f i d a v i t which omits a reference t o the time of the criminal event cannot e s t a b l i s h probable cause. Rosencranz v. United States, 356 F.2d 310; Kohler v. United States, 9 F.2d 23. In general agreement with these a u t h o r i t i e s i s Poldo v. United States, 55 F.2d 866,868, wherein it was stated '!Time of the a f f i d a v i t ' s observations * * * i s of the essence of the affidavit." The time f a c t o r i s regarded a s an important element of probable 1 1 cause i n order t o prevent the issuance of warrants on loose, ' 1 vague, o r doubtful bases of f a c t * 7v *. Anno. 100 ALR2d 525,526. I n Montana, t h e a f f i d a v i t must set f o r t h f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t a law i s being violated a t the time the warrant i s issued. S t a t e ex r e l . Stange v. D i s t r i c t Court, 71 Mont. 125, 227 P. 576. I n S t a t e v. Gardner, 74 Mont. 377, 381, 240 P. 984, t h i s Court ruled: "Neither the Constitution nor the s t a t u t e requires t h a t the showing must be made by d i r e c t evidence o r t h a t it must be s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y a conviction. The law i s s a t i s f i e d i f , by l e g a l evidence, d i r e c t o r circumstantial, i t i s made t o appear t h a t probable cause e x i s t s t o believe t h a t the s t a t u t e i s being violated * * *. "* * * it cannot be said t h a t because a man commits one crime it is reasonable t o presume t h a t he w i l l commit a l i k e crime twenty-five days o r a month l a t e r . 11 (Emphasis added). A s the a f f i d a v i t here t o t a l l y lacks any reference t o time, e i t h e r d i r e c t or circumstantial, it must be held void according t o the aforementioned principles of law. W e now consider whether a d e f i c i e n t a f f i d a v i t may be cured by responses t o o r a l inquiry from a magistrate made a t t h e time the application i s submitted. Relevant t o t h i s l i n e of inquiry is Article 11, Section 11, 1972 Montana Constitution which provides i n pertinent part: 'I* * * N o warrant t o search any place, o r s e i z e any person o r thing s h a l l issue without describing t h e place t o be searched or the person o r thing t o be seized, o r without probable cause, supported by oath o r affirmation reduced t o writing." (Emphasis added). Consistent with the requirement of a writing a r e the supporting s t a t u t o r y provisions, section 95-703, R.C.M. 1947, defining the 11 term search warrant" and section 95-704, R.C.M. 1947, l i s t i n g the grounds upon which a search warrant may issue. Here, it i s respondents1 contention t h a t the o f f i c e r ' s sworn testimony t o the magistrate a t t h e time of t h e application f o r the warrant may be used t o supplement an application d e f i c i e n t on i t s face. W e find t h i s conclusion t o be unsupported by Montana law. This question was considered i n P e t i t i o n of Gray, 155 Mont. 510, 519, 520, 473 P.2d 532. There t h i s Court ruled t h a t t h e issuance of a search warrant cannot be upheld on the basis of information not contained i n the a f f i d a v i t , the a f f i d a v i t i t s e l f providing the 11 exclusive support" f o r such issuance. In doing so, Montana joined those s t a t e s adhering t o the so-called "four corners"rule, s e t out i n Gray: "* 9~ * t h e sufficiency of an a f f i d a v i t supporting a search warrant must be found within the four c o m e r s of the a f f i d a v i t i t s e l f and reference may not be made t o o r a l conversations * * *. W e see no reason t o reach a contrary r e s u l t i n the i n s t a n t case p a r t i c u l a r l y , where a s here, the conversations were unsworn, unwritten, and unsigned. I I Cbntemporaneous oral declarations to a magistrate cannot be used to bolster an insufficient affidavit in the attempt to establish probable cause, unless such declarations are sworn, signed, re- duced to writing, and made a part of the affidavit. Relator's petition for writ of supervisory control is granted. The aforementioned evidence is suppressed. We Concur: