Title: STATE v WILSON

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 85-188 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- LLOYD WILSON, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, In and for the County of Hill, The Honorable Chan Ettien, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Ronald Smith, County Attorney, Havre, Montana For Respondent : Charles E. Petaja, Helena, Montana Submitted on briefs: Aug. 22, 1-985 Decided: October 31, 1985 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. O n January 14, 1985, defendant Lloyd Wilson f i l e d a motion t o suppress evidence found d u r i n g a s e a r c h o f a Havre, Montana, motel room i n which he was r e s i d i n g . Following an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l District granted d e f e n d a n t ' s motion. The S t a t e appeals. O n September 14, 1984, Alex Tomaskie c a l l e d t h e Havre P o l i c e Department f o r t h e t h i r d t i m e i n a month t o r e p o r t h i s 13 y e a r o l d daughter missing. O n t h e previous two o c c a s i o n s , information relayed t o t h e p o l i c e by M r . Tomaskie r e s u l t e d i n t h e l o c a t i n g o f h i s daughter. O n t h i s occasion, Tomaskie informed t h e p o l i c e t h a t h i s daughter had phoned t o s a y s h e was with a Dana Wilson i n a c a r w i t h "WILSON 2'' l i c e n s e p l a t e s a t a motel and was t o o i n t o x i c a t e d t o come home. M r . Tomaskie a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he could h e a r a g i r l g i g g l i n g i n t h e background d u r i n g t h e c a l l . A f t e r a previous escapade, Tomaskie's daughter had t o l d h e r f a t h e r t h a t Lloyd Wilson provided t h e a l i b i by which she was a b l e t o run away. However, she was n o t found w i t h Wilson on e i t h e r o f t h e previous occasions. Recognizing t h e l i c e n s e p l a t e number a s t h a t o f a c a r belonging t o defendant, Lloyd Wilson, t h e p o l i c e went t o h i s home. The c a r was n o t t h e r e . The p o l i c e then began s e a r c h i n g Havre motels f o r Wilson's c a r . It was located by Deputy Mygland a t t h e Cloud 9 Motel a t approximately 11:30 p.m., September 1 4 , 1984. Mygland asked t h e desk c l e r k i f Lloyd Wilson was a g u e s t . The c l e r k responded t h a t y e s , Wilson was i n room 208, r e g i s t e r e d under t h e name o f John Anderson. D e p u t i e s S t o l e n , R o e and Mygland approached room 208. S t o l e n knocked on t h e d o o r , b u t d i d n o t i d e n t i f y h i m s e l f . A f t e r a minute o r s o Wilson answered, opening t h e d o o r 18 t o 24 i n c h e s . Deputy S t o l e n immediately p l a c e d h i s f o o t a c r o s s t h e t h r e s h o l d o f t h e d o o r , p r e v e n t i n g it from b e i n g c l o s e d by Wilson should he a t t e m p t t o do so. I n s t e a d , Wilson s t o o d d i r e c t l y i n f r o n t o f t h e door opening w h i l e t a l k i n g w i t h S t o l e n . S t o l e n asked i f t h e Tomaskie g i r l was i n t h e room. Wilson denied knowing t h e g i r l and s t a t e d t h a t h e was a l o n e . The o n l y l i g h t i n t h e room was t h a t o f a b u r n i n g c a n d l e . However through t h e c r a c k on t h e hinged s i d e o f t h e d o o r , Deputy S t o l e n could see movement i n t h e room which h e t h o u g h t could b e a young g i r l g e t t i n g d r e s s e d . H e could a l s o see a p i p e l y i n g on a t a b l e and s m e l l marijuana and i n c e n s e burning. S t o l e n t h e n informed d e f e n d a n t t h a t u n l e s s t h e person i n t h e room came o u t s o t h a t h e could see i f it was t h e Tomaskie g i r l , he would b e r e t u r n i n g w i t h a w a r r a n t . The g i r l , 1 6 y e a r o l d Tamie Kiecker, and Wilson t h e n e x i t e d t h e room. Wilson c l o s e d t h e motel d o o r behind him and it was n o t reopened u n t i l t h e p o l i c e o b t a i n e d a s e a r c h w a r r a n t . Tamie Kiecker was taken t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n by S e r g e a n t Harada. Before l e a v i n g t h e s c e n e , however, s h e t o l d t h e s e r g e a n t t h a t t h e r e was marijuana i n t h e room and t h a t it d i d n o t belong t o h e r ; and t h a t t h e Tomaskie g i r l was n o t i n t h e m o t e l room. Wilson was a l s o t a k e n t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n and a r r e s t e d . Deputy S t o l e n r e q u e s t e d C i t y Judge E r n e s t Hofmann t o i s s u e a s e a r c h w a r r a n t f o r t h e m o t e l room, and p r e s e n t e d him w i t h t h e fol.lowing a f f i d a v i t : 1) On 091484, a t 2153 H r s . Alex Tomaskie c a l l e d i n and r e p o r t e d [M.T. ] a runaway. s h e was r e p o r t e d t o b e w i t h a Dana Wilson i n a 1975 Chevy Monte C a r l o Lic/Wilson 2. [M.T.] is 13 y e a r s o f age. H e r dob i s 092470. 2) O n 081684, Alex Tomaskie c a l l e d i n and r e p o r t e d [M.T.] a s a runaway. O n t h e same d a t e s h e was l o c a t e d a t t h e A l f r e d F r e d r i c k s o n s r e s i d e n c e a t 840 5 t h st. N. O n 082584, Alex Tornaskie c a l l e d i n and r e p o r t e d [M.T.] a s a runaway. She was l o c a t e d a t Rick C l a r k r e s i d e n c e a t Shennum T r a i l e r ] C o u r t #7. I n b o t h i n c i d e n t s Alex Tomaskie c a l l e d i n a gave u s t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n a s t o where [M.T.] was a t . I n b o t h i n c i d e n t s it proved t o b e r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n . 3) O n 091484, A l e x Tomaskie c a l l e d i n and a d v i s e d t h a t [M.T.] c a l l e d him a t 2303 and t o l d him t h a t s h e was a t a Motel b u t was t o o drunk t o come home. 4 ) While l o o k i n g f o r [M.T.] t h e d e p u t i e s checked t h e Lloyd Wilson r e s i d e n c e and found t h e c a r Wilson 2 n o t t h e r e . The v e h i c l e was l o c a t e d a t t h e Cloud 9 Motel i n Havre. 5 ) O n 081684 a t 2000 [M.T.] was r e p o r t e d a s a runaway by Alex Tomaskie. A f t e r s h e was t u r n e d o v e r t o h e r p a r e n t s on t h e same d a t e , 2040, s h e s t a t e d t o h e r p a r e n t s t h a t Lloyd Wilson had helped h e r runaway. 6 ) Deputy Mygland t a l k e d t o t h e d e s k c l e r k , Mark Roseman. Mark Roseman s t a t e d t h a t Lloyd Wilson was r e g i s t e r e d i n Room 208 under t h e assumed name of John Anderson. Deputy Mygland asked Mark Roseman i f h e knew Lloyd Wilson, and h e s t a t e d t h a t h e h a s known Lloyd Wilson f o r some t i m e . '7) D e p u t i e s went up and knocked on t h e d o o r t o Room 208, a f t e r a long pause Lloyd Wilson answered t h e door. The d e p u t i e s observed a g i r l b e l i e v e d t o b e under t h e age o f 16. T h i s was determined because o f h e r appearance and a c t i o n s . I t appeared t o look a s s h e was g e t t i n g d r e s s e d . T h i s j u v e n i l e g i r l was removed from t h e room and t a k e n t o t h e Havre P o l i c e Department. 8 ) T h i s a p p l i c a n t smelled what h e b e l i e v e d t o b e Marijuana and I n s e n t s . [ I n c e n s e ] 9) A p p l i c a n t saw a c a n d l e b u r n i n g and what he b e l i e v e d t o b e some t y p e o f p i p e on t h e c o f f e e t a b l e . Lloyd Wilson made e v e r y e f f o r t t o c o n c e a l t h e t a b l e from t h e a p p l i c a n t s view. 10) The minor removed from t h e room s t a t e d t o Deputy Mygland and S g t . Harada t h a t t h e r e was marijuana i n t h e Motel Room. She s t a t e d t h a t it d i d n o t belong t o h e r . 11) Ll-oyd Wilson h a s t h e r e p u t a t i o n i n t h e Havre a r e a a s a u s e r o f i l l e g a l d r u g s . [Typographical e r r o r s i n o r i g i n a l . ] The C i t y Judge g r a n t e d t h e r e q u e s t . The subsequent s e a r c h uncovered marijuana and o t h e r d r u g s , d r u g p a r a p h e r n a l i a and $921.00 i n cash. D e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court r e q u e s t i n g s u p r e s s i o n o f t h a t e v i d e n c e c o n t a i n s numerous a l l e l - ~ a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g : 1. The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a s e a r c h w a r r a n t i n c l u d e s f a l s e and m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n ; 2. The f a c t s i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n which a l l e g e d l y c o n s t i t u t e p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r i s s u a n c e o f a s e a r c h w a r r a n t w e r e o b t a i n e d by i l l e g a l , unwarranted and nonconsensual i n t r u s i o n ; 3 . The a p p l i c a t i o n l a c k s p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o s u p p o r t t h e i s s u a n c e o f a s e a r c h w a r r a n t ; 4. The a p p l i c a t i o n does n o t a d e q u a t e l y e s t a b l i s h t h e r e l i a b i l i t y and c r e d i b i l i t y o f i n f o r m a n t s who provided i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o f d r u g s i n t h e m o t ~ l room and i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s r e p u t a t i o n . Over t h e S t a t e ' s o b j e c t i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o show s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p o l i c e had used f a l s e and m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e a f f i d a v i t , an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g was h e l d on a l l grounds. A t t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e S t a t e and w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n from d e f e n d a n t , t h e t r i a l judge a l s o v i s i t e d t h e m o t e l room under c i r c u m s t a n c e s a l l e g e d l y s i m i l a r t o t h o s e on t h e n i g h t o f t h e s e a r c h , s t o o d where Deputy S t o l e n a l l e g e d l y s t o o d and saw f o r h i m s e l f what Deputy S t o l e n a l l e g e d l y saw from t h e doorway o f t h e room. T h e r e a f t e r , a n o r d e r and memorandum w e r e i s s u e d g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o s u p p r e s s . The t r i a l judge found t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e a f f i d a v i t was m i s l e a d i n g ; t h e f a c t s s t a t e d i n t h e a f f i d a v i t w e r e o b t a i n e d from an i l l e g a l s e a r c h ; t h e a f f i d a v i t f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f t h e i n f o r m a n t s ; and t h e a f f i d a v i t f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r t h e i s s u a n c e o f a s e a r c h w a r r a n t . I n i t s a p p e a l , t h e S t a t e r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s : 1. Did H i l l County l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s a p p r o a c h d e f e n d a n t ' s room on a p r e t e x t and r e l y on d e l i b e r a t e f a l s e h o o d s o r r e c k l e s s m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f t h e t r u t h t o o b t a i n t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t ? 2. Did Deputy S t o l e n c o n d u c t a w a r r a n t l e s s e n t r y i n t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t e l room by p l a c i n g h i s f o o t on t h e t h r e s h o l d o f t h a t room a n d , t h e r e f o r e , c o n d u c t a n u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h and s e i z u r e ? 3. Did p r o b a b l e c a u s e e x i s t f o r i s s u a n c e o f t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t ? I n S t a t e v . Sykes ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 663 P.2d 691, 695, 40 St.Rep. 690, 694, t h i s C o u r t a d o p t e d t h e test set f o r t h by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n F r a n k s v . Delaware ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 438 U.S. 154, 1 7 1 , 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2684, 57 L.Ed.2d 667, 682, f o r c h a l l e n g i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f a n a f f i d a v i t on t h e b a s i s o f d e l i b e r a t e f a l s e h o o d o r r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e t r u t h . I n i t i a l l y , " d e f e n d a n t must make a s u b s t a n t i a l p r e l i m i n a r y showing t h a t h i s r i g h t s have been v i o l a t e d . " S y k e s , 663 P.2d a t 695, 40 St.Rep. a t 694. The t r i a l judge found t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t a l l e g i n g u s e b y t h e S t a t e o f f a l s e s t a t e m e n t s i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a s e a r c h w a r r a n t c o n s t i t u t e d a " s u b s t a n t i a l p r e l i m i n a r y showing." Absent a clear a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n by t h e t r i a l judge, t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n h i s d e c i s i o n i n t h i s m a t t e r . D e f e n d a n t ' s a f f i d a v i t a l l e g e s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e real. r e a s o n b e h i n d t h e o f f i c e r s ' v i s i t t o h i s m o t e l room was t o g a i n e n t r y i n t o h i s room i n o r d e r t o s e a r c h f o r d r u g s and t h a t when h e c o n f r o n t e d Deputy S t o l e n w i t h s u c h a n a l l e g a t i o n , S t o l e n r e p l i e d "we h a v e b e e n watching you." These a s s e r t i o n s a l o n e c o n s t i t u t e a " s u b s t a n t i a l p r e l i m i n a r y showing" t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s a f f i d a v i t was based on d e l i b e r a t e falsehood o r r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d f o r t h e t r u t h . Therefore, w e hold t h a t t h e t r i a l judge d i d n o t err i n c o n s i d e r i n g evidence on t h i s i s s u e a t t h e probable cause hearing. Regarding i s s u e s two and t h r e e , w e f i n d it impossible t o r u l e on t h e lower c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n due t o t h e inadequacies o f t h a t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s . The t r i a l judge s t a t e d " S t o l e n ' s a c t i o n i n c r o s s i n g t h e t h r e s h o l d and jamming h i s boot a g a i n s t t h e door s o it could n o t be closed was a w a r r a n t l e s s i n t r u s i o n f o r purposes o f a search." However, defendant opened t h e door i n response t o S t o l e n ' s knock. Apparently defendant made no a t t e m p t t o c l o s e t h e door. N e i t h e r , of c o u r s e , d i d defendant i n v i t e Stolen i n t o h i s room. "What a person knowingly exposes t o t h e p u b l i c , even i n h i s own home o r o f f i c e , i s n o t a s u b j e c t o f Fourth Amendment p r o t e c t i o n . " Katz v. United S t a t e s (1967), 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 511, 19 L.Ed.2d 5 7 6 , 582. Unfortunately, t h e t r i a l judge makes no f i n d i n g on whether o r n o t defendant knowingly exposed h i s motel room t o t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r . The t r i a l judge makes no f i n d i n g regarding whether o r n o t Deputy S t o l e n i n t r u d e d beyond any i n v i t a t i o n defendant might have extended. F u r t h e r , t h e r e a r e no f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g whether, i f S t o l e n d i d i n t r u d e beyond d e f e n d a n t ' s i n v i t a t i o n , t h e i n t r u s i o n had any e f f e c t on what S t o l e n was a b l e t o observe i n t h e motel room. I n f a c t , t h e t r i a l judge made no f i n d i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t o what e x a c t l y Deputy Stolen could observe from t h e doorway o f t h e motel room, s t a t i n g i n s t e a d t h a t " [ t l h e l i g h t i n g was s o poor t h a t one i s led t o b e l i e v e t h a t Deputy S t o l e n ' s a p p r a i s a l contained a good measure o f wishful t h i n k i n g . " Therefore, w e remand 'chis cause t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r a second e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , a f t e r which t h e t r i a l judge s h a l l make f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and conclusions of law c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e above, a s w e l l a s f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g whether o r n o t probable cause e x i s t e d i n Deputy S t o l e n ' s a f f i d a v i t t o support issuance o f a s e a r c h warrant. F i n a l l y , w e disapprove o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e r e c r e a t i o n o f t h e scene. There i s a b s o l u t ~ l y no way t o ensure t h a t t h e t r i a l judge saw e x a c t l y what Deputy Stolen saw on t h e n i g h t o f t h e a r r e s t and search. T7isits t o t h e scene should be designed f o r t h e trier o f f a c t t o view t h e scene, n o t f o r t h e trier o f f a c t t o p l a c e himself i n t h e shoes o f one o f t h e p a r t i e s . The t r i a l j u d g e ' s determination should be based s o l e l y on t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t a p p l i c a t i o n and t h e evidence presented a t t h e second e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. Affirmed i n p a r t and remanded f o r a new e v i d e n t i a r y hearing. W e concur: