Title: STATE v STENSON

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13871 I N T H E SUPREME COURT O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1977 STATE O F M O N T A I J A , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -VS- ALLISON K. STENSON, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. D. McPhillips, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana John P. Moore, County Attorney, Cut Bank, Montana Larry Epstein, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Cut Bank, Montana For Respondent: Werner and Nelson, Cut Bank, Mdntana James C. Nelson argued, Cut Bank, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Barney Reagan, Cut Bank, Montana P h i l i p E. Roy, Browning, lYbntana Submitted: December 8, 1977 Decided: FEB 1 6 1 9 7 8 F i l e d : 1 6 I@ Hon. Peter G. Meloy, District Judge, s i t t i n g for M r . Justice Frank I. Haswell, delivered the Opinion of the Court: Defendant, a non-Indian, was charged i n the District Court, Glacier County, with criminal possession of dangerous drugs. The s t a t e appeals from the District Court's order suppressing evidence seized on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation by Blackfeet Tribal police acting under authority of a search warrant issued by the Blackfeet Tribal Court. The Blackfeet Tribe and Barney Reagan f i l e d b r i e f s as amicus curiae. O n December 2, 1976, Clifford 0. Edwards, the Blackfeet Tribal investigator, applied t o the Blackfeet Tribal Court for a search warrant to search Room 205 of the War Bonnet Lodge i n Browning, Montana, located within the exterior boundaries of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. Edwards applied for the warrant pursuant t o Chapter 6 of the Blackfeet Tribal Law and Order Code. From h i s own investigation and from information supplied by in- formants, Edwards believed that a "convicted user of narcotics" was selling drugs from Room 205. Edwards l a t e r t e s t i f i e d a t the suppression hearing that the "convicted user" he referred t o i n h i s application for a search warrant was Gale James Lapeyre, an enrolled member of the Blackfeet Tribe. Room 205 was registered i n the name of M r . M Disposal Service, a corporation. Upon receiving Edwards' application for a search warrant and taking unrecorded testimony in i t s support, Lenore Salois, Chief Judge of the Blackfeet Tribal Court, issued a search warrant. When Edwards and other t r i b a l officers searched the motel room, they found and confiscakd dangerous drugs consisting of marijuana and LSD, and certain drug paraphernalia. They then arrested the two persons occupying the room, Lapeyre and Allison K. Stenson, defendant i n t h i s action. The t r i b a l authorities turned Lapeyre over t o the federal authorities for prosecution and turned Stenson over t o the s t a t e authorities for prosecution. O n appeal w e a r e asked t o decide these issues: 1. Whether the validity of a search warrant, and affidavit i n i t s support, issued by the Blackfeet Tribal Court should be determined by Montana law or Blackfeet Tribal law, where the search is of a motel room located within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation, where the search results i n the a r r e s t of a non-Indian occupant of the motel room, and where the evidence obtained pursuant t o the search warrant is turned over t o s t a t e law enforcement authorities for use i n a s t a t e prosecution of the non- Indian? 2. Whether the search warrant and affidavit were defective under the applicable law? The s t a t e contends the validit; of the search warrant and affidavit must be governed by Blackfeet Tribal law. It argues that because the Congress of the United States has granted Indian tribes the power t o adopt a t r i b a l constitution and by-laws pur- suant t o which the Blackfeet Tribe established a Tribal Court and a Tribal Law and Order Code, the Blackfeet Tribe i s the "only proper authority vested with jurisdiction t o issue a Warrant for a Search such a s was conducted here." I n the alternative the s t a t e argues t h i s Court should analogize the present situation t o the relationship established between federal and s t a t e governments where evidence obtained pursuant t o a s t a t e issued search warrant i s admissible i n a federal prosecution i f by federal standards there has not been an unrea- sonable search and seizure. The amicus Blackfeet Tribe contends that under either con- f l i c t of laws or comity doctrines, Blackfeet Tribal law i s the appropriate law by which t o judge the validity of the search warrant and affidavit. In the alternative, the Tribe argues that Blackfeet Tribal law is entitled t o f u l l f a i t h and credit under the f u l l f a i t h and credit clause of the United States Constitution. The other amicus contends: ( l ) \ t h a t there are not sufficient facts shown to determine whether, under the Blackfeet Tribal Constitution and Law and Order Code, the Blackfeet Tribal Court had jurisdiction t o issue the search warrant; and (2) that i n determining whether probable cause existed t o issue the search warrant, t h i s Court need not decide which law, Montana or Blackfeet, applies because the statutes involved are "exactly the same ." Defendant argues that Montana statutes and their case law interpretation are the applicable law and t h a t a non-Indian by going onto the reservation does not waive the protection afforded him by the Montana Constitution and Criminal Procedure Code. During oral argument, both the s t a t e and defendant agreed that under any law--federal, s t a t e or tribal-- the search warrant and affidavit were defective and the evidence must be suppressed. Given the parties' agreement that i n any event the evidence must be suppressed, w e hold it i s e for t h i s Court t o de- cide the other questions t Hon. Peter G. Frank I. Haswell. We Concur: