No. 12482 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 19 74

THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent,

-vs

# - JOHN C. PETERS, Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of theEighth Judicial District, Honorable R, J. Nelson, Judgepresiding. Counsel of Record: ForAppellant: J. Vaughan Barron argued, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena,

Montana Thomas J. Beers, AssistantAttorney General, appeared,

Helena, Montana 

### J. Fred Bourdeau, CountyAttorney, Great Falls, Montana Thomas H. Clary, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Great

Falls, Montana

Submitted: June 12, 1974 Decided

### : 

## SEP (1 

## 7'4 Filed: 

## 3n:76 1'?-fflHon. Robert Keller, DistrictJudge, sitting in place of Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison,delivered the Opinion of the Court. Appellant was convicted of two counts of burglarly, from which he appeals, in the district court of the eighth judicial district of the State of Montana, in and for the County of Cascade, the Honorable R. J. Nelson presiding. Police officers of the Great Falls City Police Department suspected the appellant of having been engaged in certain burglaries in the city of Great Falls. They learned his true name

onAugust 3, 1972,and further learned that he was then a parolee, had absconded from the supervision of his parole officer in Billings, and had been inviolation of his parole since January 1972. A warrant for appellant's arrestwas issued by the district supervisor of the State Board of Pardons,and armed with this warrant, several detectives from the Great Falls City Police Department went to the Northern Hotel in the city of Great Falls,knocked on appellant'sdoor, identified themselves aspolicemen, entered the room and placed appellant under arrest. Upon entering the room, one of the officers testified thathe saw in plain view a Ward's Airline TV, a Lear Jet tapeplayer, and a Panasonic TV. All of these itemsmatched the description of items reported stolen in burglaries of which appellant was suspected. A systematic searchwasmade of the premises at that time without a searchwarrant and several other items were recovered that the officersbelieved to be stolen in otherburglaries. Counsel for appellantmoved to suppress all of the evidence obtained at appellant's room at the Northern Hotel and a suppression hearing was held before the Honorable Truman Bradford. Themotion to suppresswas denied and at the trial of appellant some of the items were admitted into evidence. Itwas stipulated at oral argument in this Court that only the items thatwere in plain view,mentioned above,were in controversy and other items of search, whether admitted or not, were not relevant to this appeal. Both parties stipulate that appellantwas arrested pursuant to a valid arrestwarrant and the issuepresented by appellant iswhether or not law enforcement officersmay search and examine the contentsof the premises where a person was arrested without first obtaining a valid searchwarrant. Respondent goes further,not only in urging that this Court find in the affirmative to the contention raised by appellant,but to find that a parolee's rights are something less than that of an ordinary citizen and that under those circumstances, a systematic searchmay be made of the entire premises of the parolee without a valid searchwarrant. Neither issue is presented to this Court on this appeal. The only question here iswhether or not items of stolen property, which are inplain view at the time of a valid arrest, are admissible in evidence. That they are has been well established. 443, Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 ~.~./91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L Ed 2d 564. The transcript of the suppression hearing is before the Court and there is substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings that the motion to suppress should be denied as to these three items. One of the arresting officers, a sergeant detective of the Great Falls City Police Department in charge of burglaries,

was familiar with the inventory of burglarized items, identified the three items of stolen property in plain view at appellant's hotel room,and testified that he identified and believed these three items to be stolen at the time he saw them. The trial judge

was in a better position to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and there being substantial evidence to supporthis ruling,his findings shall not be disturbed. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.Hon. Robert Keller, District Judge, sittinginplace of Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison.