Title: TOMSON v ONSTAD

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 14565 I N THE SUPREME COUHT OF THE S T A T E O F MX3TANA 1979 Petitioner, L. JOHN O N S T A D , Sheriff of Gallatin County, mntana; and RXER CRIST, Warden, I%x-~tana State Prison, Respondent. ORIGINAL PmaEDING: Counsel of Record: For Petitioner: James H. Goetz argued, B o z m , Bbntana F o r Respondent: Hon. I a e Greely, Attomey General, H e l e n a , Mntana Allen B. Chronister argued, Assistant Attomey General, Bruce E. Becker, County Attorney, Livingston, mntana Filed : Sukmitted: March 20, 1979 Decided: 1979 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court, This i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding i n which p e t i t i o n e r , Douglas C. Thomson, seeks a w r i t of habeas corpus. P e t i - t i o n e r was convicted under s e c t i o n s 54-133 and 54-134, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 45-9-102 and 45-9-104 l4CA, f o r possession and s a l e of amphetamines, and sentenced t o f i v e y e a r s i n t h e s t a t e p r i s o n by t h e D i s t r i c t Court of Park County. This Court affirmed p e t i t i o n e r ' s c o n v i c t i o n , hold- i n g t h a t t h e s e a r c h of h i s home was conducted pursuant t o a v a l i d warrant. S t a t e v. Thomson (1976), 169 Mont. 158, 161- 62, 545 P.2d 1070, 1071-72. P e t i t i o n e r then sought a w r i t of habeas corpus i n t h e Federal D i s t r i c t Court f o r Montana. That Court concluded t h a t t h e warrant a u t h o r i z i n g t h e s e a r c h of Thomson's home was i n v a l i d , granted t h e w r i t of habeas corpus, and ordered a new s t a t e t r i a l . The S t a t e p e t i t i o n e d f o r a r e h e a r i n g , which t h e F e d e r a l Court granted. Within days a f t e r t h e c o u r t i s s u e d i t s habeas corpus o r d e r , t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court r u l e d t h a t " a s t a t e p r i s o n e r may n o t be g r a n t e d f e d e r a l habeas corpus r e l i e f on t h e ground t h a t evidence obtained i n an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s e a r c h and s e i z u r e was introduced a t h i s t r i a l " i f t h e state c o u r t s had pro- vided an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r " f u l l and f a i r l i t i g a t i o n " of t h e p r i s o n e r ' s Fourth Amendment claim. Stone v. Powell (1976), 428 U.S. 465, 494, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 3052, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067, 1088. On t h e b a s i s of t h i s d e c i s i o n , t h e Federal D i s t r i c t Court ordered t h e w r i t withdrawn. P e t i t i o n e r appealed t o t h e Ninth C i r c u i t Court of Appeals, which affirmed t h e Federal ~ i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judg- ment, 573 F.2d 1316, and then sought c e r t i o r a r i review b e f o r e t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court. The Supreme c o u r t denied t h e c e r t i o r a r i a p p l i c a t i o n on t h e a u t h o r i t y of Stone v. Powell. U.S. , 99 S.Ct. 117, 58 L.Ed.2d 130. See, 47 U.S.L.W. 3203 (U.S. O c t . 2, 1978) (No. 77-1804). P e t i t i o n e r now seeks habeas corpus r e l i e f i n t h i s Court, contending t h a t t h e search of h i s home v i o l a t e d t h e United S t a t e s and Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n s . P e t i t i o n e r b r i n g s o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e Yontana c o n s t i - t u t i o n a l requirement t h a t t h e information r e l i e d upon t o es- t a b l i s h probable cause must be i n w r i t i n g . Because t h i s i s a m a t t e r of major c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e and because w e d i d n o t consider t h i s contention during t h e previous appeal, w e agreed t o consider t h e p e t i t i o n . Upon review w e conclude t h a t t h e search warrant was improperly i s s u e d , and t h a t a w r i t of habeas corpus i s an a p p r o p r i a t e remedy. The f a c t s l e a d i n g t o t h e s e a r c h of p e t i t i o n e r ' s home a r e t h a t one Paul H a l l e t t , while under a r r e s t on f r a u d u l e n t check charges, t o l d t h e Livingston, Montana, p o l i c e t h a t he had information about drug s a l e s by p e t i t i o n e r . The p o l i c e summoned t h e county a t t o r n e y , who l i s t e n e d t o H a l l e t t ' s s t o r y , promised him f u l l immunity from prosecution on any drug-related charges, and prepared an a f f i d a v i t i n support of a s e a r c h warrant a p p l i c a t i o n , using H a l l e t t ' s informa- t i o n . A c i t y p o l i c e o f f i c e r signed t h e a f f i d a v i t . The a f f i d a v i t s t a t e d t h a t H a l l e t t had e n t e r e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s home one week e a r l i e r and obtained a q u a n t i t y of amphetamines from p e t i t i o n e r . I t a l s o s t a t e d t h a t H a l l e t t had been informed w i t h i n t h e previous 12 hours t h a t t h e r e w e r e s t i l l amphetamines and o t h e r dangerous drugs i n p e t i t i o n e r ' s home. The county a t t o r n e y took H a l l e t t and two p o l i c e o f - f i c e r s b e f o r e t h e d i s t r i c t judge a t t h e judge's home d u r i n g t h e e a r l y morning hours. The judge placed H a l l e t t and one of t h e o f f i c e r s under o a t h and questioned them concerning t h e i r knowledge of t h e p e t i t i o n e r ' s drug-related a c t i v i t i e s . Following t h i s interview, t h e judge signed t h e search war- r a n t . The o f f i c e r s searched p e t i t i o n e r ' s home, where they found approximately 70 p i l l s . A t a p r e t r i a l hearing on p e t i t i o n e r ' s motion t o sup- p r e s s t h e s e i z e d p i l l s , t h e District Court permitted t h e judge who had i s s u e d t h e warrant t o t e s t i f y concerning t h e statements made t o him by H a l l e t t and t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s . H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had known from h i s own experience t h a t p e t i t i o n e r had been involved i n t h e "drug scene." I n t h e previous Thomson opinion, t h i s Court held t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t i n support of t h e s e a r c h warrant a p p l i c a t i o n was based upon hearsay information. 169 Mont. a t 162, 545 P.2d a t 1072. While hearsay evidence may be s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h probable cause t o support a s e a r c h warrant, t h e person making t h e a p p l i c a t i o n must provide t h e i s s u i n g m a g i s t r a t e w i t h a d d i t i o n a l f a c t s which w i l l permit t h e m a g i s t r a t e t o determine whether probable cause e x i s t s . F i r s t , " t h e m a g i s t r a t e must be informed of some of t h e underlying circumstances from which t h e informant concluded t h a t t h e n a r c o t i c s w e r e where he claimed they were." Second, t h e m a g i s t r a t e must be informed of "some of t h e underlying circumstances from which t h e [ a p p l i c a n t ] con- cluded t h a t t h e informant . . . was ' c r e d i b l e ' o r h i s i n f o r - mation ' r e l i a b l e . ' " Aguilar v. Texas (1964), 378 U.S. 108, 1 1 4 , 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1514, 1 2 L.Ed.2d 723, 729; S p i n e l l i v. United S t a t e s (1969) , 393 U.S. 410, 412-13, 89 S.Ct. 584, 587, 21 L.Ed.2d 637, 641-42; S t a t e v. Robey (1978), Mont . , 577 P.2d 1226, 1228, 35 St.Rep. 541, 544-45; S t a t e v. Thorsness (1974), 165 Mont. 321, 324, 528 P.2d 692, The a f f i d a v i t presented t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e was c l e a r l y i n s u f f i c i e n t because it f a i l e d t o set f o r t h any circum- s t a n c e s showing t h a t H a l l e t t was a c r e d i b l e informant o r t h a t h i s information was r e l i a b l e . Indeed, i f t h e circum- s t a n c e s underlying H a l l e t t ' s information showed anything, they showed t h a t he could n o t be trusted--he was a r e c e n t a r r i v a l i n Livingston, was under a r r e s t f o r f r a u d u l e n t check charges, and was wanted on s i m i l a r charges i n another s t a t e . H i s information was n o t reliable--he s t a t e d t h a t t h e l a s t t i m e he had been i n p e t i t i o n e r ' s home was a f u l l week e a r l i e r . Thus, it i s d o u b t f u l t h a t H a l l e t t ' s information could have been s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h probable cause f o r a s e a r c h of p e t i t i o n e r ' s home. However, r e g a r d l e s s of whatever a d d i t i o n a l information H a l l e t t provided t o t h e judge who i s s u e d t h e warrant, t h e f a i l u r e t o p u t t h a t information i n w r i t i n g precludes o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of whether it might have cured t h e i n s u f f i - c i e n t a f f i d a v i t . This Court has previously construed A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 1 1 of t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n t o r e q u i r e t h a t a l l t h e f a c t s r e l i e d upon by t h e i s s u i n g m a g i s t r a t e be included i n w r i t i n g i n t h e sworn a f f i d a v i t . S t a t e ex rel. Townsend v. D i s t r i c t Court (1975), 168 Mont. 357, 362-63, 543 P.2d 193, 196. See a l s o , United S t a t e s v. Anderson ( 9 t h C i r . 1971), 453 F.2d 174, 177 & n. 3; P e t i t i o n of Gray (1970), 155 Mont. 510, 520, 473 P.2d 532, 537. Cf. Stone v. Powell 428 U.S. a t 473, n. 3, 96 S.Ct. a t 3042, n. 3 , 49 L.Ed.2d a t 1075, n. 3 . The f a i l u r e t o i n c l u d e any a d d i t i o n a l f a c t s i n t h e a f f i d a v i t l e a v e s t h e s e a r c h warrant i n s u f f i c i e n t under t h e Aguilar and Thorsness s t a n d a r d s , and t h e evidence obtained under t h a t warrant inadmissible i n a prosecution a g a i n s t p e t i t i o n e r . Mapp v. O h i o (19611, 367 U.S. 6 4 3 , 655, 8 1 S . C t . 1 6 8 4 , 1 6 9 1 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1 0 8 1 , 1 0 9 0 . P e t i t i o n e r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of h a b e a s c o r p u s i s g r a n t e d . W e c o n c u r : 9 ; l ~ d p+LL4P@ C h i e f J u s t i c e