D A 0 8

- 0 2 2 5



### I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E S T A T E O F M O N T A N A

2 0 0 9 M T 1 9 1

S T A T E O F M O N T A

N A

,

P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l e e

,

v

.

J O H N N I E L E E F O S T O N

,

D e f e n d a n t a n d A

p p e l l a n t

.

A P P E A L F R O M : D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F o u r

t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t

, I n a n d F o r t h e C o u

n t y o f M i s s o u l a

, C a

u s e N o

. D C 0 7

- 2 0 5

H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t L

. D e s c h a m p s

, I I I

, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e

C O U N S E L O F R E C O R D :

F o r A p p e l l a n t :

J o s e p h P a l

m e r H o w a r d

, A t t o r

n e y a t L a w ( a r g

u e d )

, G r e a t F a l l s

, M o n t a n a

F o r A p p e l l e e :

H o n

. S t e v e B u l l o c k

, M o n t a n a A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ; M a r

k W

. M a t t i o l i

, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r

n e y G e n e r a l ( a r g

u e d )

, H e l e n a

, M o n t a n a

F r e d R

. V a n V a l

k e n b u r g

, M i s s o u l a C o u n t y A t t o r n e y ; A n d r e w P a

u l

, D e p u t y C o u

n t y A t t o r n e y

, M i s s o u l a

, M o n t a n a

A r g u e d : M a y 4

, 2 0 0 9

S u b m i t t e d : M a y 5

, 2 0 0 9

D e c i d e d : M a y 2 8

, 2 0 0 9

F i l e d :

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C l e r k May 28 20092

C h i e f J u s t i c e M i k e M c G r a t h d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t

h e C o u r t

.

¶ 1 J o h n n i e L e e F o s t o n w a s c o n v i c t e d b y a M i s s o u l a C o u n t y j u r y o f t w o c o u n t s o f

f e l o n y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s ( c o c a i n e ) i n v

i o l a t i o n o f § 4 5

- 9

- 1 0 1

, M C A

. H e

r e c e i v e d a s e n t e n c e o f t w e n t y y e a r s i n t h e M o n t a n a S t a t e P r i s o n o n e a c h c o u n

t

, t o r u n

c o n s e c u t i v

e l y

, w i t h t h e s e n t e n c e o n t h e s e c o n d c o u n

t s u s p e n d e d

.

¶ 2 F o s t o n p r e s e n t s t

h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f

o r r e v i e w :

¶ 3 Issue One: Whether this Court should exercise plain error review to address

Foston’s claim that law enforcement officers improperly used electronic monitoring of

the drug transactions.

¶ 4 I s s u e T w o : D i d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i m p r o p e r l y a d m

i t t h e t e s t i m o n y b y o n e o f t h e

l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f i c e r s t h a t t h e c o n v

e r s a t i o n s h e o v

e r h e a r d b e t w e e n F o s t o n a n d t h e

u n d e r c o v e r i n f o r m a n t w e r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n s ?

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶ 5 F o s t o n c a m e t o t

h e a t t e n t i o n o f l a w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f i c e r s i n M i s s o u l a C o u

n t y a s a

p e r s o n w h o m a y b e s e l l i n g c o c a i n e

. D e t e c t i v e N e w e l l o f t h e S h e r i f

f ’ s D e p a r t m e n t m a d e

a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r a c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f

o r m a n t ( C I ) t o m a k e c o n t r o l l e d d r u g p u r c h a s e s f

r o m

Foston. Newell had b e e

n w i t h t h e S h e r i f

f ’ s O f f i c e f o r f i f t e e n y e a r s

, a n d h a d w o r k e d o n

t h e d r u g t a s k f o r c e t h e e n t i r e t i m e

. T h e s e p u r c h a s e s w e r e c o o r d i n a t e d b y N e w e l l a n d

w e r e c o n d u c t e d u

n d e r t h e s u r v

e i l l a n c e o f s e v e r a l l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f i c e r s

. S o m e o f t h e

i n t e r a c t i o n s b e t w e e n F o s t o n a n d t h e C I t o o k p l a c e i n m o t e l r o o m s i n w h i c h t h e o f

f i c e r s3

h a d i n s t a l l e d v i d e o a n d a u d i o m o n i t o r i n g d e v i c e s t h a t a l l o w e d t h e m t o h e a r a n d s e e w

h a t

o c c u r r e d i n t

h e r o o m s

.

¶ 6 A c o n t r o l l e d b u y o c c u r r e d o n A p r i l 2 0

, 2 0 0 7

. N e w e l l w a s w i t h t h e C I w h e n s h e

c a l l e d F o s t o n a n d a r r a n g e d t o b u y t w o o u n c e s o f c o c a i n e f o r $ 2

, 8 0 0

. F o s t o n a n d t h e C I

a r r a n g e d t o c o n d u c t t

h e s a l e a t t h e C I ’ s m o t e l r o o m

, w h e r e t h e o f

f i c e r s h a d i n s t a l l e d a

r a d i o t r a n s m

i t t e r a n d v

i d e o c a m e r a t h a t a l l o w e d t h e m t o h e a r a n d o b s e r v e a c t i v i t y i n t h e

r o o m

. N e w e l l g

a v e t h e C I m a r k e d b i l l s t o m a k e t h e d r u g b u y

.

¶ 7 O n t h e a f

t e r n o o n o f A

p r i l 2 0 t h e o f

f i c e r s i n a r o o m a d

j a c e n t t o t h e C I ’ s r o o m

o b s e r v e d F o s t o n a r r i v

e a t t h e m o t e l i n h i s v e h i c l e

. T h e y s a w h i m w a l k p a s t t h e i r r o o m t o

t h e C I ’ s r o o m a n d k

n o c k o n t h e d o o r

. T h r

o u g h t h e v i d e o c a m e r a t h e o f

f i c e r s s a w t h e C I

g i v e F o s t o n m o n e y f

o r t h e d r u g s

. T h e o f

f i c e r s t h e n w a t c h e d F o s t o n l e a v e t h e m o t e l a n d

f o l l o w e d h i s c a r t o t

h e h o m e o f D e m e t r i u s S m i t h

. T h e o f

f i c e r s s a w F o s t o n e n t e r t h e

S m i t h h o u s e a n d t h e n r e t u r n t o t h e m o t e l w

h e r e h e m e t t

h e C I i n a p a r k i n g l o t a c r o s s t h e

s t r e e t

. I m m e d i a t e l y a f

t e r F o s t o n l e f

t t h e s c e n e t h e C I d e l i v

e r e d t w o o u n c e s o f c o c a i n e t o

N e w e l l

.

¶ 8 T h e n e x t c o n

t r o l l e d b u y o c c

u r r e d o n M a y 2

, 2 0 0 7

, a g a i n a t a m o t e l w i t h t h e s a m e

C I

, a n d w i t h o f

f i c e r s p r o v i d i n g v i s u a l a n d e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e f r o m a n a d

j a c e n t r o o m

.

O f f i c e r s o b s e r v

e d F o s t o n a r r i v

e

, e n t e r t h e C I ’ s r o o m a n d l e a v

e

. H e r e t u r n e d a n d m e t t h e

C I o u t s i d e i n a v e h i c l e

. W h e n t h e C I r e t u r n e d t o t

h e m o t e l r o o m s h e d e l i v

e r e d c o c a i n e t o

t h e o f f i c e r s

. A s u b s e q u e n t s e a r c h o f t h e S m i t h h o u s e r e c o v

e r e d a g u n

, d r u g s a n d s o m e o f

t h e m o n e y t

h e C I h a d u s e d t o b u y t h e d r u g s f r o m F o s t o n

. S m

i t h t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e h e l d4

d r u g s a n d m o n e y f

o r F o s t o n

. A t t r i a l t h e S t a t e d i d n o t p r e s e n t t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e C I o r

t h e r e c o r d i n g s o f a n y o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s

.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 9 T h i s C o u r t w i l l u n d e r t a k e r e v i e w o f m a t t e r s n o t r a i s e d a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t l e v e l o n l y

i n n a r r o w c i r c u m s t a n c e s a s s e s s e d o n a c a s e

- b y

- c a s e b a s i s

. T h o s e i n c l u d e s i t u a t i o n s

w h e r e f a i l i n g t o r e v i e w t h e a l l e g e d e r r o r m a y r e s u l t i n a m a n i f e s t m i s c a r r i a g e o f j u s t i c e

,

m a y l e a v e u n s e t t l e d t

h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e f

u n d a m e n t a l f

a i r n e s s o f t h e t r i a l

, o r m a y

c o m p r o m i s e t h e i n t e g

r i t y o f t h e j u d i c i a l p r o c e s s

. S t a t e v

. E n g l i s h , 2006 MT 177, ¶ 6 6

,

3 3 3 M o n t

. 2 3

, 1 4 0 P

. 3 d 4 5 4

.

¶ 1 0 W e r e v

i e w i s s u e s i n v

o l v i n g t h e a d m

i s s i o n o f e v i d e n c e f

o r a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n

.

State v. Mizenko

, 2 0 0 6 M T 1 1

, ¶ 8

, 3 3 0 M o n t

. 2 9 9

, 1 2 7 P

. 3 d 4 5 8

.

DISCUSSION

¶ 1 1 I s s u e O n e : W

h e t h e r t h i s C o u r t s h o u l d e x e r c i s e p l a i n e r r o r r e v i e w t o a d d r e s s

F o s t o n ’ s c l a i m t h a t l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f i c e r s i m p r o p e r l y u s e d e l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r i n g o f

t h e d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n s

. F o s t o n u r g e s r e v e r s a l o f h i s c o n v

i c t i o n b a s e d o n t

h e d e c i s i o n i n

S t a t e v

. G o e t

z

, 2 0 0 8 M T 2 9 6

, 3 4 5 M o n t

. 4 2 1

, 1 9 1 P

. 3 d 4 8 9

, w

h e r e t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a

t

w a r r a n t l e s s e l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r i n g a n d r e c o r d i n g o f f a c e t o f a c e c o n v e r s a t i o n s b e t w e e n

i n f o r m a n t s a n d d e f

e n d a n t s i n t

h e d e f e n d a n t s ’ h o m e

, i n t

h e a b s e n c e o f a n e x c e p t i o n t o t h e

w a r r a n t r e q u i r e m e n t

, v

i o l a t e s A r t i c l e I I

, S e c t i o n s 1 0 a

n d 1 1 o f t h e M o n

t a n a C o n s t i t

u t i o n

.

Goetz

, ¶ 5 4

.

¶ 1 2 F o s t o n d i d n o t m a k e a n y w a r r a n t

- b a s e d o b j e c t i o n t o t

h e e l e c t r o n i c s u r v

e i l l a n c e a t

h i s t r i a l

, a n d t h e Goetz c a s e w a s d e c i d e d a f t e r F o s t o n ’ s c o n v i c t i o n

. F o s t o n f i l e d a m o t i o n5

t o s t a y t h i s a p p e a

l a n d t o r e m a n d h i s c a s e t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a n

o f f i c e r ’ s p u r p o r t e d t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g F o s t o n ’ s c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h t h e C I s h o u l d h a v e

b e e n s u p p r e s s e d b a s e d u p o n G o e t z

. A f t e r r e c e i v i n g b r i e f

s

, w e d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n

,

d e c l i n i n g t o r e t r o a c t i v

e l y a p p l y t h e Go etz h o l d i n g t o F o s t o n ’ s c a s e

. T h e d e t e r m i n a t i v e

f a c t o r w a s t h a t F o s t o n ’ s c a s e w a s n o t “ s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d ” w i t h t

h e G o e t z c a s e b e c a u s e

F o s t o n h a d n o t o b

j e c t e d t o t

h e e l e c t r o n i c s u r v

e i l l a n c e o n w a r r a n t g

r o u n d s a t t r i a l

. W e

c o n c l u d e d t h a

t n o n e o f t h e e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s o b

j e c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t

a p p l i e d

. S e e State v. Carter

, 2 0 0 5 M T 8 7

, ¶ ¶ 1 3

- 1 9

, 3 2 6 M o n t

. 4 2 7

, 1 1 4 P

. 3 d 1 0 1 1

.

¶ 1 3 O n a p p e a

l

, F o s t o n m a k e s a b r i e f a n d c o n c l u s o r y a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h i s C o u r

t s h o u l d

u n d e r t a k e p l a i n e r r o r r e v

i e w o f t h e G o e t

z i s s u e

, c i t i n g C

a r t e r

. F o s t o n h a s n o t p r o v i d e d

a n y s u b s t a n t i a l r e a s o n w

h y h e i s e n t i t l e d t o p l a i n e r r o r r e v i e w

, a n d t h i s i s s u e w a s d e c i d e d

i n t h e o r d e r d e

n y i n g h i s m o t i o n t o s t a y a n d r e m a n d

. Goetz d o e s n o t a p p l y t o F o s t o n ’ s

c a s e f o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n o u r O c t o b e r 2 9

, 2 0 0 8

, O r d e r i n t h i s m a t t e r

.

¶ 1 4 I s s u e T w o : D i d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i m p r o p e r l y a d m

i t t e s t i m o n y b y o n e o f t h e l a w

e n f o r c e m e n t o f

f i c e r s a s t o w

h e t h e r F o s t o n ’ s c o n v

e r s a t i o n s w i t h t h e C I w e r e c o n s i s t e n t

w i t h d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n s ? F o s t o n b r o a d l y c o n t e n d s t h a t O f f i c e r N e w e l l w a s i m

p r o p e r l y

a l l o w e d t o t e s t i f

y a s t o t h e c o n t e

n t s o f F o s t o n ’ s c o n v

e r s a t i o n s w i t h t h e C I t h a t N e w e l l

h e a r d t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f t h e e l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r i n g

. H o w e v e r

, F o s t o n d o e s n o t c i t e a n y

s u c h s p e c i f

i c t e s t i m o n y b y N e w e l l

, a n d w e f i n d n o n e

. W

h i l e t h e p r o s e c u

t o r a s k e d N e w e l l

t o r e c o u n t s t a t e m e n t s m a d e b y t h e C I o r b y F o s t o n

, F o s t o n ’ s a t t o r n e y o b j e c t e d a n d

u l t i m a t e l y N e w e l l n e v

e r a n s w e r e d t h o s e q u e s t i o n s

. N e w e l l d i d n o t t e s t i f y a s t o t h e

c o n t e n t o f c o n v

e r s a t i o n s o r s t a t e m e n t s b y F o s t o n o r t h e C I

.6

¶ 1 5 N e w e l l d i d t e s t i f

y a t l e n g t h a b o u t t h e c o n t r o l l e d d r u g b u y t r a n s a c t i o n s b e t w e e n

F o s t o n a n d t h e C I

, a s n o t e d i n t h e f a c t s s u m m a r i z e d a b o v

e

. T h i s t e s t i m o n y w a s p r i m a r i l y

b a s e d u p o n d i r e c t o b s e r v a t i o n s t h a t N e w e l l a n d o t h e r o f f i c e r s m a d e o f t h e c o m

i n g s a n d

g o i n g s o f F o s t o n a n d t

h e C I

, u p o n N e w e l l ’ s p r o v i d i n g t h e m o n e y f o r t h e d r u g b u y s

, a n d

u p o n r e c o v

e r i n g f r o m t h e C I t h e d r

u g s t h a t F o s t o n s o l d h e r

. A t t h e e n d o f t h i s t e s t i m o n y

,

Newell was asked whether the conversations he overheard were “c o n s i s t e n t w i t h ” h i s

“ u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a d r

u g d e a l ” a n d h e a n s w e r e d t h a t t h e y w e r e

.

¶ 1 6 O n a p p e a l t h e p a r t i e s d i s a g

r e e a s t o t h e l e g

a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f N e w e l l ’ s

“ u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a d r

u g d e a l ” a n s w e r

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a d m i t t e d t h e t e s t i m o n y

, o v

e r

o b j e c t i o n

, a s a p r e s e n

t s e n s e i m

p r e s s i o n u n d e r M

. R

. E v i d

. 8 0 3 ( 1 )

. F o s t o n c o n t e n d s t h a t

t h e t e s t i m o n y w a s h e a r s a y a n d n o t a d m i s s i b l e a s a s t a t e m e n t o f p r e s e n t s e n s e i m p r e s s i o n

.

O n a p p e a l t h e S t a t e d o e s n o t a r g

u e t h a t N e w e l l ’ s t e s t i m o n y w a s a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r R u l e

803(1 )

. T h e S t a t e a r g

u e s t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y w a s N e w e l l ’ s o p i n i o n a n d w a s n o t h e a r s a y

b e c a u s e i t w a s n o t a r e c o u n t i n g o f a s t a t e m e n t o f F o s t o n o r t h e C I

. T h e S t a t e a l s o a r g u e s

t h a t i n a n y e v

e n t i f a d m

i s s i o n o f t h e t e s t i m o n y w a s e r r o r

, i t w a s h a r m l e s s e r r o r

.

¶ 1 7 W e d o n o t e n d o r s e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s r e l i a n c e u p o n M

. R

. E v i d

. 8 0 3 ( 1 ) a s a

g r o u n d f o r a d m i t t i n g N e w e l l ’ s t e s t i m o n y

. N e w e l l ’ s a n s w e r w a s a s t a t e m e n t o f h i s o p i n i o n

b a s e d u p o n h i s p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n o f t r a n s a c t i o n s t h a t t h e j u r y d i d n o t h e a r o r s e e

,

a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r M

. R

. E v

i d

. 7 0 1

. U

n d e r t h a t r u l e a w i t n e s s w

h o i s n o t a n e x

p e r t m a y

t e s t i f y i n t h e f

o r m o f i n f

e r e n c e s o r o p i n i o n s t h a

t a r e r a t i o n a l l y b a s e d o n t h e w i t n e s s ’

p e r c e p t i o n s a n d t

h a t a r e h e l p f

u l t o a c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e w i t n e s s ’ t e s t i m o n y o r t h e

d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a f

a c t i n i s s u e

. T h i s C o u r t h a s u p h e l d a d m i s s i o n o f o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y7

b y l a w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f i c e r s

. Onstad v. Payless Shoesource

, 2 0 0 0 M T 2 3 0

, ¶ 3 9

, 3 0 1

M o n t

. 2 5 9

, 9 P

. 3 d 3 8

, rev ’ d i n p a r t o n o t h e r g r o u n d s

, J o h n s o n v

. C

o s t c o

, 2 0 0 7 M T 4 3

,

3 3 6 M o n t

. 1 0 5

, 1 5 2 P

. 3 d 7 2 7 ; State v. Frasure

, 2 0 0 4 M T 3 0 5

, ¶ ¶ 1 7

- 1 8

, 3 2 3 M o n

t

. 4 7 9

,

1 0 0 P

. 3 d 1 0 1 3 ; H

a l l v

. R a s m u s s e

n

, 2 6 1 M o n

t

. 3 2 8

, 3 3 5

- 3 6

, 8 6 3 P

. 2 d 3 8 9

, 3 9 4 ( 1 9 9 3 )

. I f

t h e j u r y i s c a p a b l e o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e f a c t s w i t h o u

t t h e w i t n e s s ’ o p i n i o n

, t h e o p i n i o n i s

n o t a d m i s s i b l e

. S t

a t e v

. W e b b

, 2 4 3 M o n t

. 3 6 8

, 3 7 3

- 7 4

, 7 9 2 P

. 2 d 1 0 9 7

, 1 1 0 0 ( 1 9 9 0 )

.

S i n c e t h e j u r y n e v

e r h e a r d o r s a w t h e c o n v

e r s a t i o n s b e t w e e n F o s t o n a n d t h e C I

, N e w e l l ’ s

o p i n i o n a s t o w

h a t h e h e a r d a n d s a w w e r e h e l p f u l t o a c l e a r u

n d e r s t a n d i n g o f h i s

t e s t i m o n y

. U

n i t e d S t a t e s v

. F r e e m a n

, 4 9 8 F

. 3 d 8 9 3

, 9 0 1

- 0 2 ( 9 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 7 )

.

¶ 1 8 I n a d d i t i o n

, a t t r i a l t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d a m p l e e v i d e n c e f r o m w h i c h t h e j u r y c o u l d

c o n c l u d e t

h a t F o s t o n w a s s e l l i n g c o c a i n e

, w h o l l y i n d e p e n d e n

t f r o m t h e o n e a n s w e r b y

N e w e l l t h a t w

h a t e v e r h e o v e r h e a r d w a s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a d r u g d e a l

. I

n d e p e n d e n

t l y o f t h e

e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e

, t h e o f f i c e r s k n e w t h a t t h e C I h a d a r r a n g e d t o m e e t F o s t o n t o b u y

d r u g s

, t h a t s h e w a s g i v

e n m a r k e d b i l l s t o d o s o

, a n d t h a t s h e d e l i v

e r e d c o c a i n e t o t h e m

i m m e d i a t e l y a f

t e r m e e t i n g F o s t o n

. T h e o f f i c e r s s a w F o s t o n c o m

i n g t o t h e m o t e l

, a n d

h e a r d h i m k

n o c k i n g o f t h e d o o r o f t h e C I ’ s r o o m

. T h e y s a w h i m l e a v i n g t h e C I ’ s r o o m

a n d t h e y f

o l l o w e d h i m t o t h e S m

i t h r e s i d e n c e w

h e r e t h e y f

o u n d d r u g s

, a g u n

, a n d c a s h

t h a t i n c l u d e d t h e m a r k e d b i l l s t h a t h a d b e e n p r o v i d e d t o t h e C I t o m a k e t h e d r u g b u y s

.

S m i t h t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e h e l d t h e d r

u g s a n d m o n e y f

o r F o s t o n

. S i n c e t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d

a m p l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n c l u s i o n t

h a t F o s t o n h a

d e n g a g e d i n d r u g s a l e s

, a n y

e r r o r w a s h a r m

l e s s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t

. State v. Strauss

, 2 0 0 3 M T 1 9 5

, ¶ 2 5

, 3 1 7

M o n t

. 1

, 7 4 P

. 3 d 1 0 5 2

.8

¶ 1 9 I n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h i s e v i d e n c e a n d t h e e n t i r e t y o f t h e t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l

,

N e w e l l ’ s s t a t e m e n t o f h i s o p i n i o n t h a t t h e C I a n d F o s t o n h a d c o n d u c t e d d r u g d e a l s w a s

c u m u l a t i v e a n d h a r m

l e s s

, i f i t w a s e r r o r

. F

r e e m a n

, 4 9 8 F

. 3 d a t 9 0 5

- 0 6

.

¶ 2 0 W e a f

f i r m

.

/ S / M I K E M c G R A T H

W e c o n c u r :

/ S / J O H N W A R N E R

/ S / W

. W I L L I

A M L E A P H A R T

/ S / P A T R I C I A C O T T E R

/ S / J I M R I C E

/ S / B R I A N M O R R I S

Justice James C. Nelson, specially concurring.

¶ 2 1 I c o n c u r i n t h e C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n a s t o I s s u e O n e

. I a l s o c o n c u r a s t o I s s u e T w o

, b u t

w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g e x

p l a n a t i o n f

o r m y d e c i s i o n

.

¶ 2 2 As to Issue Two, I agree that Detective Newell could testify as to his pe rsonal,

d i r e c t o b s e r v

a t i o n s o f t h e “ c o m i n g s a n d g o i n g s o f F o s t o n a n d t h e C I

. ” O p i n i o n

, ¶ 1 5

. I

a l s o a g r e e t h a t

, b a s e d o n h i s t r a i n i n g

, e x p e r i e n c e

, a n d p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n s

, N e w e l l

could give his opinion that what he observed was consistent with his unde rstanding of a

d r u g d e a l

. O p i n i o n

, ¶ 1 7

. F i n a l l y

, I a g r e e t h a t

, i n d e

p e n d e n t l y of the warrantless audio

a n d v i s u a l r e c o r d i n g s ( c o l l e c t i v e l y

, “ t h e w a r r a n t l e s s e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e ” )

, w

h i c h t h e9

jury never heard or saw, Newell had sufficient personal, dir ect observations on which to

base his opinion testimony. Opinion, ¶¶ 17

- 18.

¶ 2 3 I am concerned, however, with the warrantless electronic surveillance that Newell

“characterized” in his testimony. Admitting the actual warrantless electronic evidence

would cle a r l y r

u n a f o u l o f t h i s C o u r

t ’ s d e c i s i o n i n S t

a t e v

. G o e t z , 2008 MT 296, 345

Mont. 421, 191 P.3d 489. But instead, Newell testified that the conversations which he

o v e r h e a r d w e r e “ c o n s i s t e n t w i t h ” h i s “ u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a d r u g d e a l

, ” O p i n i o n

, ¶ 1 5

, a n d

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a

d m i t t e d t h i s t e s t i m o n y

, o v e r o b j e c t i o n

, u n d e r t h e p r e s e n t s e n s e

i m p r e s s i o n e x c e p t i o n t o t h e h e a r s a y r u l e

, O p i n i o n

, ¶ 1 6

. 1

¶ 2 4 In this regard, the Court holds that any error by the District Court in admitting

Newell’s characterization of what he overheard through the warrantless electronic

surveillance was harmless. Opinion ¶ 18. In so doing, the Court notes that it does “not

endorse the District Court’s reliance upon M. R. Evid. 803(1) as a ground for admitting

Newell’s testimony.” Opinion, ¶ 17. Yet, the Court then notes, in conclusion, that “if it

was error,” the error was harmless. Opinion, ¶ 19. This seems to imply that what was

harmless error in the present case might not be error at all in the next case

— G o e t z

notwithstanding.

¶ 2 5 Therefor e, reading the Court’s Opinion for what it says and for what others may

read as leaving open, I must state that I have serious concerns with the basis for the

District Court’s ruling. In the first place, I am not persuaded that the present sense

1 “ A s t a t e m e n t d e s c r i b i n g o r e x p l a i n i n g a n e v

e n t o r c o n d i t i o n m a d e w h i l e t h e

d e c l a r a n t w a s p e r c e i v

i n g t h e e v

e n t o r c o n d i t i o n

, o r i m m e d i a t e l y t h e r e a f t e r

, ” i s n o t

e x c l u d e d b y t

h e h e a r s a y r

u l e

. M

. R

. E v

i d

. 8 0 3 ( 1 )

.10

i m p r e s s i o n e x c e p t i o n t o t

h e h e a r s a y r

u l e w a s e v

e n a p p l i c a b l e

. I

n t h e s e c o n d p l a c e

, i f

M

. R

. E v i d

. 8 0 3 ( 1 ) i s a v

a i l a b l e t o t

h e p r o s e c u t i o n i n w a r r a n t l e s s e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e

c a s e s

, t h e n t h i s e x c e p t i o n w i l l e f f e c t i v e l y a n d c o m

p l e t e l y g u t o u r d e c i s i o n i n G o e t

z . L aw

enforcement will be able to pursue electronic surveillance without a warrant and then, at

trial, simply “characterize” the fruits of the unconstitutional search as being “consistent

with” a drug transaction (or some other crime)

— without repeating or adm itting into

evidence the actual conversations. There is no way to cross

- examine this sort of

“ c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n ” t e s t i m o n y w i t h o u t o p e n i n g t h e d o o r t o a d m i t t i n g t h e a u d i o a

n d v i s u a l

r e c o r d i n g s t h e m s e l v e s ( a s s u m i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e e m e d t h o s e i n a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r Goetz

i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e )

. T h e f

u n d a m e n t a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s t o i n d i v

i d u a l p r i v a c y a n d t o b e

f r e e f r o m u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s a n d s e i z u r e s d i s c u s s e d a n d e n f o r c e d i n G o e t

z cannot be

so easily and expediently abrogated by an exception to the hearsa y rule.

¶ 2 6 That said, it is not necessary here to discuss further the merits of the District

Court’s ruling, for two reasons. First, the Court recognizes that the District Court erred in

ruling as it did in this case

— a case which appears to involve garden

- va riety warrantless

e l e c t r o n i c s u r v

e i l l a n c e

. O p i n i o n

, ¶

¶ 1 7

- 1 8

. P r e s u m a b l y

, t h i s p r e c e d e n t w i l l a p p l y t o

o t h e r g a r d e n

- v a r i e t y w a r r a n t l e s s e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e c a s e s

.

¶ 2 7 S e c o n d

, I a m e n c o u r a g e d t h a t w e w i l l n o t s e e t

h i s i s s u e a g

a i n

, g i v e n t h e f o l l o w i n g

e x c h a n g e w h i c h o c c u r r e d a t o r a l a r g u m e n t

, w h e r e t h e S t a t e i t s e l f c o n c e d e d t h e e r r o r o f

the District Court’s ruling:

JUSTICE: M r

. [ A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ( h e r e i n a f

t e r

, “ A G ” ) ]

, l e t m e

a s k y o u t o c o m

m e n t o n s o m e t h i n g

. A s i d e f r o m w h a t e v e r p r o b l e m s t h e r e

a r e i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c a s e

, i f t h e o f f i c e r i s a l l o w e d t o g

o o n t h e s t a n d a n d11

testify that “I’ve listened to the tapes; I’ve seen the audiovisual; I’m not

g oing to repeat anything that was said, but it sure looked like a drug deal to

m e

. ” I g u e s s t w o t h i n g s c o m e t o m i n d

, a t l e a s t t o m

y m i n d

. I t s e e m s l i k e a

p r e t t y f a c i l e w a y o f g e t t i n g a r o u n d w h a t w e h e l d i n G o e t

z

, f i r s t o f a l l

, a n d

s e c o n d l y

, t h e r e i s a b s o l u t e l y n o w a y f

o r a d e f e n d a n t t o c r

o s s

- e x a m i n e

s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h a t w i t h o u t o p e n i n g t h e d o o r t o g

e t t i n g i n t o the discussion.

And thirdly, it seems to me that what’s going to happen is the defense is

g oing to come on with an expert and say, “I’ve heard the tapes; I’ve seen

t h e a u d i o v i s u a l ; i t w a s n ’ t a d r

u g d e a l

. ” W

h e r e a r e w e g

o i n g w i t h a l l t

h i s ?

A G : I t h i n k y o u r q u e s t i o n r e l a t e s m o r e t o t h e c o n f r o n t a t i o n i s s u e

, Y o u r

Honor. And, with respect to the question that was earlier asked, the State

would concede that this was not present sense impression. That was

e r r o n e o u s ; t

h i s w a s n ’ t p r e s e n t s e n s e i m p r e s s i o n

. T o b e h o n e s t w i t h Y o u r

H o n o r s

, w e w e r e g

o i n g d o w n t h e w r o n g r o a d i n t h i s c a s e a n d g e t t i n g i n t o

a n y a l l e g e d h e a r s a y t h a

t o c c u r r e d i n t h i s c a s e

. B u

t t h e f a c t o f t h e m a t t e r i s

, when the prosecutor

— when Mr. Paul

—

when it came time for him to ask

the question of Detective Newell, he thought better of his strategy, and he

did not ask the informant

— or excuse me, Detective Newell, to repeat any

solemn, accusatory testimonial statement that the declarant made. And the

evidence in this case

— you know, there was cumulat ive evidence of this

conversation, you know, of other conversations occurring with respect to

D e t e c t i v e N e w e l l ’ s t e s t i m o n y

.

J U S T I C E : A

r e w e g o i n g t o b e s e e i n g f

u r t h e r c a s e s w

h e r e t h i s t e c h n i q u e

i s t r i e d

, t h o u g

h

, i n o t h e r c a s e s ?

AG: No, no. Your Honor, I t h i n k t h a t ’ s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e f

a c t t h a t t h i s i s

p r e

- G o e t z

. N o w o b v

i o u s l y p o s t

- Goetz

, w e w o u l d n ’ t b e g e t t i n g i n t o t h i s s o r t

o f t h i n g b e c a u s e u n d e r G o e t z , we need a warrant to get into any evidence

regarding electronic surveillance. But the point, as we argued in our brief

a n d a s w e ’ r e a r g

u i n g h e r e t o d a y

, i s t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e o f D e t e c t i v e N e w e l l ’ s

t e s t i m o n y w a s c u m

u l a t i v e o f o t h e r e v

i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d

. W e h a d a w e a l t h

o f e v i d e n c e t h a t d r

u g t r a n s a c t i o n s w e r e o c c u r r i n g b a s e d u p o n v i s u a l

, n a k e d

v i e w o b s e r v

a t i o n s

, o b s e r v

a t i o n s w i t h b i n o c u l a r s

, s e e i n g M r

. F o s t o n t h r o u g h

t h e c u r t a i n s o f t h e a

d j a c e n t m o t e l r

o o m w h e r e o f f i c e r s w e r e l o c a t e d

,

c o m i n g a n d g

o i n g t o t h e m o t e l r o o m

, m a i n t a i n i n g c o n s t a n t v i s u a l

s u r v e i l l a n c e o f h i m g

o i n g t o D e m e t r i u s S m

i t h ’ s r e s i d e n c e

, b a c k t o t h e

m o t e l r o o m

, a n d t

h e n m e e t i n g w i t h t h e i n f

o r m a n t

, a n d t

h e n t h e i n f o r m a n t l o

a n d b e h o l d c o m e s o u t o f t h e s e m e e t i n g s a n d p r o d u c e s t h e c o c a i n e

. A

n d w e

can tie the bills

— the money that we gave to the informant to Demetrius

Smith’s residence where M r. Foston went in connection with the third

t r a n s a c t i o n

. I

t ’ s i m p o r t a n t i n t e r m s o f e v a l u a t i n g t h e p r e j u d i c i a l i m

p a c t o f12

D e t e c t i v e N e w e l l ’ s t e s t i m o n y t o c o n t r a s t t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r

t i n g t h e f i r s t

c h a r g e w i t h t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e s e c o n d a n d t h i r d c h a r g

e s

. W i t h

r e s p e c t t o t h e f

i r s t c h a r g e o f w h i c h M r

. F o s t o n w a s n o t c o n v i c t e d

, t h e record indicates that officers saw a dark figure when Mr. Foston was going

t o S m i t h ’ s r e s i d e n c e

. T h e r e w e r e p o i n t s i n t h e r e c o r d w h e r e t h e y w e r e n o t

a b l e t o m a k e p o s i t i v

e I D o f M r

. F o s t o n

, a n d t h e y d i d n o t m a i n t a i n c o n s t a n t

v i s u a l s u r v

e i l l a n c e o f M r

. F o s t o n

. T h e e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e s e c o n d a n d

third counts of which Mr. Foston was convicted was qualitatively much

better and independent of any electronic surveillance in th e case

— o c c u r r i n g

i n t h i s c a s e

. . . .

J U S T I C E : Mr. [AG], then, I just want to put some parameters on your

concession for my mind, is that it was error in the State’s

— it is the State’s

position that it was error to allow the police officer to testify that i t looked

like a drug deal to him

— t h a t w a s e r r o r

. I

t w a s h a r m

l e s s e r r o r

.

A G : I t w a s h a r m

l e s s e r r o r

.

J U S T I C E : It wasn’t a present sense impression, but was it proper in any

other way?

AG: I don’t think so.

JUSTICE: It was error to let that in, but it’s harmless error.

AG: Well, and I think too

— I think the judge was thinking in terms of

D e t e c t i v e N e w e l l ’ s s e n s e i m

p r e s s i o n s a n d I t h i n k h e w a s c o n f u s i n g w h a t

D e t e c t i v e N e w e l l w a s o b s e r v i n g w i t h t h e h e a r s a y e x c e p t i o n

. I t w a s n o t a

p r e s e n t s e n s e i m

p r e s s i o n

, because obviously that applies to the present

sense impression of the declarant, and that wasn’t the case here. But it’s

our contention

—

n o

, w e s h o u l d

n ’ t h a v e s t a r t e d g

o i n g d o w n t h a t r o a

d

, b u t

w e d i d n o t g

o d o w n i t i n t h e w a y t h a

t w o u l d h a v

e b e e n r e v

e r s i b l e e r r o r

b e c a u s e w e d i d n o t a s k D e t e c t i v e N e w e l l t o r e

p e a t a n y s t a t e m e n t s t h a

t t h e declarant made that are accusatory or testimonial.

¶ 2 8 A c c o r d i n g

l y

, a n d b a s e d o n t h e f

o r e g o i n g

, I c o n c u r i n t h e C o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n a s t o

I s s u e T w o

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n a d m i t t i n g

, u n d e r M

. R

. Evid. 803(1), Detective

Newell’s testimony “characterizing” the warrantless electronic surveillance as being

“ c o n s i s t e n t w i t h ” a d r

u g d e a l

. O p i n i o n

, ¶

¶ 1 5

- 1 7

. D e s p i t e t h i s e r r o r

, h o w e v e r

, N e w e l l13

w a s p r o p e r l y a l l o w e d t o t e s t i f y a s t o h i s p e r s o n a

l

, d i r e c t o b s e r v

a t i o n s o f t h e c o m

i n g s a n d

g o i n g s o f F o s t o n a n d t h e C I a n d t o o f f e r h i s o p i n i o n o f a d r

u g t r a n s a c t i o n o n t h e b a s i s o f

t h o s e p a r t i c u l a r o b s e r v

a t i o n s

. O p i n i o n ¶ 1 7

. W i t h o u t g o i n g t h r o u g

h a c o m p r e h e n s i v e

V a n K i r k h a r m l e s s

- e r r o r a n a l y s i s

, see State v. Van Kirk

, 2 0 0 1 M T 1 8 4

, ¶ ¶ 3 7

- 4 7

, 3 0 6

M o n t

. 2 1 5

, 3 2 P

. 3 d 7 3 5 ; see also e.g. State v. Derbyshire

, 2 0 0 9 M T 2 7

, ¶ ¶ 4 3

- 5 3

, 3 4 9

Mont. 114, 201 P.3d 811, I conclude that under a correct 2 a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e V

a n K i r k

t e s t

, a n d o n t h e f

a c t s o f t h i s c a s e

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ’ s e r r o r w a s t r i a l e r r o r

, t h e t a i n t e d

e v i d e n c e w a s a d m

i t t e d t o p r o v

e a n e l e m e n t o f t

h e c h a r g e d o f f e n s e

, t h e S t a

t e h a s d i r e c t e d

u s t o a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e t h a t p r o v e d t h e s a m e f

a c t s a s t h e t a i n t e d e v

i d e n c e

, a n d t

h e S t a t e

h a s d e m o n s t r a t e d t

h a t t h e q u a l i t y o f t

h e t a i n t e d e v i d e n c e w a s s u c h t h a t t h e r e w a s n o

reasonable possibility it might have contributed to Foston’s conviction.

¶ 2 9 I t h e r e f

o r e c o n c u r a s t o I s s u e O n e a n d

, w i t h t h e f o r e g o i n g e x p l a n a t i o n f

o r m y

d e c i s i o n

, c o n c u r a s t o I s s u e T w o

.

/ S / J A M E S C

. N E L S O N

2 C o m p a r e Opini o n

, ¶ 1 8

, with Derbyshire

, ¶ 5 4

.