Title: STATE v LENON

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13595 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT OF THE STATE O F MONTANA 1977 THE STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- ALBERT F. LENON, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert Sykes, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hash, J e l l i s o n & O'Brien, K a l i s p e l l , Montana James B a r t l e t t argued, K a l i s p e l l , Montana For Respondent: Hon. l4ike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, lbntana J. Mayo Ashley argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana P a t r i c k Springer, County Attorney, K a l i s p e l l , Montana Submitted: September 2 1 , 1977 DecidedGT 26 1 x x m 2s 191. Filed. M r . Chief J u s t i c e Paul G. Hatfield delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant appeals from a conviction of possession of dangerous drugs. The s t a t e charged defendant i n d i s t r i c t court, Flathead County, with t h e offense of felony possession of dangerous drugs. O n January 28, 1976, Honorable Robert C. Sykes, a f t e r a hearing, denied defendant's motion t o suppress h i s confession. O n April 20, 1976, defendant was found g u i l t y of t h i s offense a t a jury t r i a l . O n June 2, 1976, t h e c o u r t entered judgment, sentenced defendant t o f i v e years imprisonment, and then suspended t h e sentence. O n June 21, 1976, t h e court denied defendant's a l t e r - n a t i v e motions f o r a c q u i t t a l o r f o r a new t r i a l . The f a c t s brought o u t a t t h e t r i a l which are relevant t o t h i s appeal a r e a s follows: O n June 11, 1975, K a l i s p e l l p o l i c e o f f i c e r s obtained a warrant t o search a Kalispell house. The o f f i c e r s executed t h e warrant s h o r t l y before midnight on Friday, June 13, 1975. A s they approached t h e house, they observed an individual, 8 t o 10 f e e t i n f r o n t of them, approaching t h e house on t h e f r o n t walk. The o f f i c e r s , fearing t h a t t h e individual would alert the occupants of the house a s t o the imminent search, pursued t h e individual i n t o t h e house. Policeman Donald Hossack t e s t i f i e d t h a t , from the l i g h t i n t h e house foyer, he could i d e n t i f y t h e individual by h i s height, type and c o l o r of s h i r t , h a i r color and length, build and type of jeans. The individual had a bundle o r bag under h i s arm, and s i l h o u e t t e d i n t h e house l i g h t , it appeared t o be a brown paper bag. The o f f i c e r s entered t h e house four t o s i x seconds a f t e r t h e individual did. Upon t h e i r e n t r y , t h e o f f i c e r s came face- to-face with defendant, who matched t h e appearance of t h e individ- u a l they saw e n t e r t h e house with t h e bag o r bundle. Directly behind defendant, about t h r e e o r four s t e p s up the stairway, was a brown paper bag. The o f f i c e r s i n t h e i r search, seized various drug paraphernalia and marijuana i n t h e u p s t a i r s rooms. The brown paper bag d i r e c t l y behind defendant contained 16 " l i d s " of marijuana, weighing approximately one ounce per l i d . The police o f f i c e r s wrote an inventory of t h e i t e m s seized, which they l e f t a t t h e house, and returned t h e search warrant and an inventory of t h e seized i t e m s t o t h e court. The p o l i c e o f f i c e r s , however, f a i l e d t o make a r e t u r n of t h e brown paper bag of marijuana t o t h e c o u r t which issued t h e search warrant. The o f f i c e r s then a r r e s t e d defendant and t h e two people who were t h e subjects of t h e search warrant. Defendant and t h e two o t h e r a r r e s t e e s were read t h e i r Miranda r i g h t s and then transported t o t h e Kalispell City j a i l f o r booking purposes. A t t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n t h e o f f i c e r s gave defendant a form p r i n t e d with t h e Miranda warnings. Defendant signed t h a t form. The Booking procedure w a s completed sometime between 2:30 and 3:00 a.m. on Saturday, June 1 4 , 1975, a t t h e Flathead County j a i l . Shortly before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, June 1 4 , 1975, Officer Hossack m e t i n t h e j a i l with defendant. The o f f i c e r d i d not remember whether he gave defendant a verbal Miranda warning a t t h e i r 9:00 a.m. meeting, although he has a notation i n h i s records saying t h a t he did. The o f f i c e r gave defendant a "volun- t a r y statement" form with a Miranda-like warning printed a t t h e top. Defendant then, i n h i s own handwriting, wrote t h a t he had taken a sack containing marijuana i n t o t h e house on t h e n i g h t he w a s a r r e s t e d . N o lawyer was present a t t h e confession. Officer Hossack t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d not know i f i n f a c t defendant knew he d i d not have t o make a statement, d i d not know whether defendant knew he could have a lawyer present, and d i d not know whether defendant knew h i s statement could be used a g a i n s t him i n a court of law. The o f f i c e r d i d state, though, that he read defendant the top part of the "voluntary statement" form which listed defendant's right to an attorney and his right to remain silent. Officer Hossack, who had been a "friendly acquaintance" of defendant for ten to fifteen years, assured defendant that he would bring him before a judge and get him admitted to bail as soon as possible. The justice of the peace was out of town and defendant did not have his initial appearance until the morning of Monday, June 16, 1975. The officer testified that " * * * for my own clarification and for a better case * * *" he thought he told defendant to add in a statement that the sack was brown colored. Defendant did write this into the confession and signed it at the bottom. Defendant raises the following issues on appeal: 1 . Did the police have probable cause to arrest defen- dant? 2. Did the "then existing circumstances" require de- fendant's immediate arrest, as contemplated in section 95-608(d), R.C.M. 1947? 3 . Was defendant's confession voluntarily given? 4. Did the officers' failure to present defendant be- fore a magistrate before interrogation render the confession in- admissible? 5. Did Officer Hossackls statement at trial that he was looking specifically for the brown paper bag before he went into the house constitute reversible error? 6. Did the police officers' failure to make a return of the brown paper bag of marijuana, render the seized evidence inadmissible under section 95-712, R.C.M. 1947? Defendant states that "good faith and mere suspicion" by policemen as to a suspect's commission of an offense is insufficient to establish probable cause to arrest. The mere fact that a defendant is on the premises where the policemen have reason to believe there are drugs will not justify an arrest. State ex rel. Glantz v. District Court, 154 Mont. 132, 461 P.2d 193 (1969). There must be a showing of some connection with illegal or criminal activity by a defendant on the premises be- fore there is probable cause to arrest him. State v. Hull, 158 Mont. 6, 487 P.2d 1314 (1971). Defendant argues that there were insufficient facts to connect him with the brown paper bag of marijuana at the time of the arrest. At most, the facts gathered by the peace officers at the moment of arrest, gave reason for them to be suspicious of the defendant. Defendant is indubitably correct in his assertion that "mere suspicion" is not the equivalent of probable cause to arrest. State v. Lahr, Mont . , 560 P.2d 527, 34 St.Rep. 90 (1977). A peace officer may legally arrest a person without a warrant, however, when he "believes on reasonable grounds that the person is committing an offense * * *". Section 95-608(d), R.C.M. 1947. The "reasonable grounds" requirement of section 95-608(d) is synonymous with "probable cause". State v. Fetters & Lean, 165 Mont. 117, 526 P.2d 122 (1974). "Probable cause to arrest without a warrant exists where the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which he had reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reason- able caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed." State v. Hill, Mont . 550 P.2d 390, 33 St. Rep. 496 (1976). Defendant matched the physical appearance as to cloth- ing, statute, build and hairstyle of the individual that the officers saw enter the house immediately before them; the individual who entered the house carried a brown sack; the officers con- fronted defendant immediately upon entering the house; the officers discovered a brown paper bag full of marijuana on the steps directly behind defendant. In this case the "facts and circumstances within the [officers'] knowledge" could reason- ably have led them to no other belief than that defendant was committing the offense of possession of dangerous drugs. Defendant next contends that, because the police officers knew defendant to be a reputable Flathead County businessman with no prior criminal record, the existing circumstances did not require his immediate arrest. Section 95-608(d), R.C.M. 1947, allows a warrantless arrest only when the officer reason- ably believes the suspect is committing an offense or " * * * that the person has committed an offense and the existing circum- stances require his immediate arrest." Defendant claims that the police thus had the statutory duty to present facts estab- lishing probable cause to a neutral magistrate who could then judge the sufficiency of the probable cause to arrest. Defendant's reasoning on this point is specious. Sec- tion 95-608(d) provides for two distinct situations. Where an officer reasonably believes that a person had in the past commit- ted an offense, he may arrest the suspect without a warrant only where the existing circumstances require his immediate arrest. Where, however, the peace officer reasonably believes that an individual is presently committing an offense, he may arrest that person at that time, whether or not the existing circumstances require the arrest. Defendant herein was charged with the offense of possession of dangerous drugs, and at the moment of his arrest the officers could reasonably believe that defendant was committing that possessory offense by virtue of his similarity in appearance to the person they had just seen enter the house with the brown bag, and due to the fact that the brown bag of marijuana was directly behind defendant on the stairs. See People v. Berry, 17 I11.2d 247, 161 N.E.2d 315 (1959), overruled in part on other grnds.; People v. Watkins, 19111.2d 11, 166 N.E.2d 433 (1960). If a defendant's confession is involuntary, it violates his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination and may not be used as evidence at his criminal trial without violating his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 80 L Ed 682, 56 S.Ct. 461 (1936). Voluntariness is the underlying test of admissibility of statements, admissions or confessions. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 45 L Ed 2d 416, 95 S.Ct. 2254 (1975); State v. Zachmeier, 151 Mont. 256, 441 P.2d 737 (1968). The question of voluntariness largely depends upon the facts of each case, no single fact being dispositive. Brown v. Illinois, 45 L Ed 2d at 427; State v. Chappel, 149 Mont. 114, 423 P.2d 47 (1967). The determination of voluntariness, rather, depends upon the "totality of circumstances". Clewis v. Texas, 386 U.S. 707, 18 L Ed 2d 423, 87 S.Ct. 1338 (1967). The trial judge, at the January 28, 1975 hearing on defendant's m~tion to suppress, determined that defendant had voluntarily given his written confession to the offense of posses- sion of dangerous drugs. The issue of the voluntariness of a confession is largely a factual determination, addressed to the discretion of the trial court. State v. White, 146 Mont. 226, 405 P.2d 761 (1965), cert. den. 384 U.S. 1023, 16 L Ed 2d 1026, 86 S.Ct. 1955 (1966). The trial court's judgment as to volun- tariness of a confession will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly against the weight of the evidence, State v. Smith, 164 Mont. 334, 523 P.2d 1395 (1974); State v . Rossell, 113 Mont. 457, 127 P.2d 379 (1942). Defendant argues that several factors created a "totality of circumstances" under which his confession was involuntary. Defendant asserts that because Officer Hossack testified that he may have instructed defendant to add to his confession the state- ment that the sack (which he had previously admitted having car- ried into the house) was a grocery sack of brown color, the con- fession was derived from the officer's and not from defendant's thought processes. Defendant maintains that he confessed due to hope of leniency through subservience to the directions of the police officer, and that the officer had incorrectly informed him that the other two suspects arrested on the night of the search had already confessed. Finally, defendant points out that the interrogating officer testified that he did not remember whether he orally read defendant his Miranda rights on the morning of the confession and did not know whether defendant understood his rights. We cannot overemphasize our strong condemnation of police practices wherein an officer instructs a suspect to add certain words to his confession "for a better case" or wherein a police officer misinforms a defendant as to other arrestees having given confessions, as is alleged here. We cannot, however, upon a re- view of the entire record, state that the totality of the cir- cumstances was such as to overbear defendant's will and create "' * * * any fair risk of a false confession?'" State v. Robuck, 126 Mont. 302, 308, 248 P.2d 817 (1952), citing from State v. Sherman, 35 Mont. 512, 90 P, 981, 119 Am.St.Rep. 869, The evidence at trial indicated that there was an atmos- phere of cordiality between defendant and Officer Hossack at the time of interrogation. This is in marked contrast to the physical brutality in Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 80 L Ed 2d 682, 56 S.Ct. 461 (1936) or the mental coercion in Payne v. ~rkansas, 356 U.S. 560, 2 L Ed 2d 975, 78 S.Ct. 844 (1958) which led to forced, involuntary, and therefore, inadmissible confessions. Rather than making threats, the officer in this case merely asked defendant if he would make a statement. The officer testified that he made no promises contingent upon defendant's giving a confession, and defendant, who chose not to take the stand, presented no evidence to rebut the officer's assertion. Nor was there any other evidence of coercion in this case. Defendant is an adult male and successful businessman who presumably could well comprehend the import of his actions. The police did not subject defendant to the "third degree". Rather, the interrogation began at 9:00 a.m. and defendant wrote and signed his confession by 9:lO a.m. The officer's suggestion that defendant add the sentence that the sack he carried into the house "was a grocery sack of brown color" is not, under the facts of this case, sufficient to show that the confession was involuntary. In the absence of coercive circumstances, the key is whether a defendant voluntarily sees the facts as the officer reflects them. See United States v. Del Porte, 357 F.Supp. 969 (S.D. N.Y. 1973), aff'd sub nom., United States v. St. Jean, 483 F.2d 1399 (2nd Cir. 1973). In this case, defendant in his confession had already admitted that he had carried a sack con- taining marijuana into the house. The additional sentence, written at the officer's suggestion, merely described the color of that sack. Despite the voluntary character of defendant's confession under traditional principles, defendant's confession would have to be excluded if the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 16 L Ed 2d 694, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966) were not met by the police officers. Under Miranda, a defendant, prior to in-custody interrogation, must be apprised that he has the right to remain silent; that anything he does say may be used as evidence against him in a court of law; that he has the right to consult a lawyer and have the lawyer present with him during interroga- tion; and that, if he is indigent, he may obtain court appointed counsel. In interpreting Miranda, the Supreme Court has stated that: " * * * unless law enforcement officers give certain specified warnings before question- ing a person in custody, * * * any statement made by the person in custody cannot over his objection be admitted in evidence against him as a defendant at trial, even though the state- ment may in fact be wholly voluntary. See Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 41 L Ed 2d 182, 94 S.Ct. 2357." Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 46 L Ed 2d 313, 319, 96 S.Ct. 321 (1975). See also, Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 49 L Ed 2d 91, 96 S.Ct. Defendant states that Officer EIossackls statement at trial that he did not remember whether he gave defendant a verbal ~iranda warning on the morning of defendant's confession, should alone vitiate the confession. Defendant also points to the officer's testimony that he did not know whether defendant in fact appreciated all his rights. Defendant's contention is with- out merit. The police verbally advised defendant of his Miranda rights at the time of defendant's arrest. When the police trans- ported defendant to the police station, they again gave defen- dant his Miranda warning, this time on a printed form which de- fendant signed. Finally, defendant wrote his confession on a form upon which the Miranda warning was printed. Defendant does not claim that either of the two Miranda warnings given to him on the night of his arrest were in any way insufficient. He merely claims that the confession should be suppressed because the interrogating officer failed to couple the written warning with a verbal warning the next morning when defendant confessed. In this case, the time between the first verbal Miranda warning and the confession was less than nine hours. Such a brief time lapse between the verbal warning and the confession did not by itself, under the facts of this case, create a duty to verbally repeat those warnings. United States v. Hopkins, 433 F.2d 1041, (5th Cir. 1970) cert.den., 401 U.S. 1013, 28 L Ed 2d 550, 91 S. Ct. 1252 (1971). Rather, defendant gave every indication that he understood his rights when he told Officer Hossack on the morning of the confession that he did not want to call a lawyer. Under the "totality of the circumstances", defendant understood his rights, confessed voluntarily, and there was no need to repeat the Miranda warning. See, Comment, - The Need to Repeat Miranda Warnings at Subsequent Interrogations, 12 Washburn L.J. 222 (1973). The issue in this case is whether defendant fact understood his rights, and not, as defendant claims, whether the interrogating police officer thought that defendant understood his rights. The ultimate responsibility for resolving this issue lies not with the interrogating officer, but with the courts. Miranda, 16 L Ed 2d at 730, n. 55. We find that the requirements of Miranda were met, that defendant voluntarily confessed and that the trial judge properly admitted the written confession into evidence at trial. Defendant also claims that his confession should have been suppressed because of what he asserts was "unnecessary delay" between the time he was arrested and the time he was brought before a judge for his initial appearance. Section 95-901(b), R.C.M. 1947, provides: "Any person making an arrest without a warrant shall take the arrested person without unneces- sary delay before the nearest or most accessible judge in the same county and a complaint, stat- ing the charges against the arrested person, shall be filed forthwith." Defendant was arrested sometime around midnight, Friday, June 13, 1975, confessed a t 9:00 a.m., Saturday, June 1 4 , 1975, and w a s brought f o r h i s i n i t i a l appearance on Monday morning, June 16, 1975. Officer Hossack t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t r i e d several times t o telephone t h e j u s t i c e of t h e peace before he learned t h a t t h e j u s t i c e w a s o u t of town f o r t h e weekend. W e disapprove of t h e police procedure used i n t h i s case. I n addition t o t h e j u s t i c e of t h e peace before whom defendant was brought, Flathead County has one o t h e r j u s t i c e of t h e peace and t h e eleventh j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t of which Flathead County is a p a r t , has two d i s t r i c t court judges. The t e s t i f y i n g o f f i c e r f a i l e d t o show t h a t t h e p o l i c e t r i e d t o contact any of these judges t o arrange an i n i t i a l appearance. I n t h e proper case, unexcused delay might lead t o protracted confinement of a defen- dant, contribute t o prompting a confession, and warrant t h e sup- pression of t h e confession. This, however, i s not such a case. Defendant f a i l e d t o prove t h a t h i s f a i l u r e t o be presented before a magistrate u n t i l t h e Monday morning a f t e r h i s Friday night a r r e s t c o n s t i t u t e d "unnecessary delay", since t h e j u s t i c e of t h e peace was o u t of town u n t i l Monday, and t h e r e was no evi- dence t h a t t h e r e was any o t h e r judge a v a i l a b l e i n t h e county over t h e weekend. See S t a t e v. Benbo, - Mont . - I - P.2d t NO. 13491 (Mont. f i l e d October 26, 1977.). Defendant's f i f t h contention of e r r o r i s t h a t , because Officer Hossack t e s t i f i e d a t t h e suppression hearing t h a t he had no p r i o r knowledge of t h e contents of t h e brown paper bag, it was r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r f o r him t o t e s t i f y a t t r i a l t h a t he was s p e c i f i - c a l l y looking f o r t h e brown paper bag before he entered t h e house t o execute t h e search warrant. It i s d i f f i c u l t t o a s c e r t a i n t h e inconsistency between Officer Hossack's statement a t t h e suppression hearing and h i s testimony a t t r i a l . Although it is t r u e t h a t he d i d not know the contents of the bag at the time the individual carried it into the house, the officer certainly could still be looking for the bag as he entered so that he could check its contents. Furthermore, defendant showed no prejudice from the statement and failed to object to the statement at trial. Ob- jections first raised on appeal will not be considered by this Court. State v . Armstrong, Mont. , 562 P.2d 1129, 34 St.Rep. 213 (1977); State v . Braden, 163 Mont. 124, 515 P.2d 692 (1973). Section 95-712, R.C.M. 1947, requires police officers to make a return of the search warrant and all things seized to the judge who issued the warrant. In this case, the police returned the warrant and an inventory of the items seized to the judge. The "things seized" however, were not returned. De- fendant asserts that the failure of the officers to make a return to the judge of the brown paper bag of marijuana per se rendered that item inadmissible as evidence at trial. The Illinois Supreme Court, in interpreting its return of seized evidence statute, the section from which 95-717 was taken has stated that " * * * faili~re to comply with statutory requirements concerning the steps to be taken after the warrant has been served does not render the search warrant or the search conducted pursuant thereto invalid * * *." People v. Hawthorne, 45 I11.2d 176, 258 N.E.2d 319, 322 (1970), cert. den., 400 U.S. 878, 27 L Ed 2d 115, 91 S.Ct. 119 (1970). Defendant has the burden of affirmatively showing that an irregularity in the search and seizure affected his substantial rights. Section 95-717, R.C.M. 1947; State v. Watkins, 156 Mont. 456, 481 P.2d 689 (1971). Defendant in this instance failed to demonstrate any prejudice to his substantial rights by the officers' failure to make a return of the brown paper bag of marijuana. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Chief J u s t i c e We concur: .............................