No. 04-856 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

2006 MT 54 

_______________________________________ 

STATE OF MONTANA, 

 Plaintiff and Respondent, 

 v. 

BRIDGETTE MORSE, 

 Defendant and Appellant. 

______________________________________ 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, 

 In and for the County of Hill, Cause No. DC 2003-125 

 The Honorable David G. Rice, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

 For Appellant: 

 Daniel A. Boucher, Altman & Boucher, Havre, Montana 

 For Respondent: 

 Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Micheal S. Wellenstein, Assistant 

Attorney General, Helena, Montana 

 Cyndee L. Peterson, Hill County Attorney, Havre, Montana 

____________________________________ 

Submitted on Briefs: September 28, 2005 

Decided: March 14, 2006 

Filed: 

______________________________________ 

Clerk 
 2

Justice John Warner delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

¶1 Bridgette Morse (Morse) appeals from an order of the Twelfth Judicial District 

Court, Hill County, denying her motion to suppress evidence gathered from an improper 

search and seizure. We affirm. 

¶2 We address the following issue on appeal: 

¶3 Did the District Court err in finding sufficient probable cause in the application for 

a search warrant to justify the search of Morse=s apartment? 

¶4 On December 22, 2003, social worker Sheila Dugdale (Dugdale) of the 

Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) conducted a home visit to 

Morse=s apartment. Law enforcement officers Russell Ostwalt (Ostwalt) and Peter 

Federspiel (Federspiel) accompanied Dugdale at her request. An anonymous call to 

DPHHS five days before instigated this home visit. The caller had observed over 100 

people stop at Morse=s apartment over the previous weekend, and reported that Morse 

sold drugs in the presence of her juvenile daughter. 

¶5 During the fall of 2003,1

 the local Drug Task Force (Task Force) had also received 

a call concerning Morse from a known person who wished to remain anonymous. This 

caller had witnessed short-term traffic at Morse=s apartment and suspected Morse of 

selling drugs. In addition, the Task Force received information regarding Morse on 

December 17, 2003, from an anonymous informant, who had provided reliable 

information before. According to this informant, Morse distributed drugs from her 

apartment. 

 1

Although the Task Force received this call on December 13, 2003, the application 

for a search warrant reported this call as being received during the fall of 2003. 
 3

¶6 When Dugdale, Ostwalt, and Federspiel arrived at Morse=s apartment, Dugdale 

knocked on the door using a code knock that had been provided by the person who had 

reported Morse was selling dangerous drugs. A female voice responded to the knock, but 

Dugdale could not understand what she said, and knocked again. No one inside the 

apartment responded to this second knock. After several more unanswered knocks on the 

door, Federspiel announced that it was the police. Morse then opened the door. 

¶7 As soon as they entered the apartment, they could detect a strong odor of incense. 

Morse took Dugdale and Federspiel around the house, and Ostwalt remained in the living 

room with the other people in the apartment. In total, four people besides Morse were in 

the apartment, and all four had prior drug-related arrests. Morse also had a prior arrest for 

possession of drug paraphernalia. When Federspiel entered the bedroom, he could smell 

marijuana. In addition, Federspiel observed an empty electric digital scale box on the 

floor in the living room. According to Morse, she had received a Christmas present 

wrapped in the box. Federspiel asked for permission to search the bedroom, but Morse 

would not allow such a search without a warrant. Federspiel then cleared the residence 

and applied for a search warrant. 

¶8 In his application for a search warrant, Federspiel related the information provided 

by the two callers to the Task Force and the caller to DPHHS. He also explained the 

delay in being allowed to enter the apartment, the odor of incense and marijuana, the 

empty electric digital scale box, and the prior criminal involvement with drugs of all 

persons found in the apartment. The magistrate found probable cause and issued a 

warrant to search Morse’s apartment. 
 4

¶9 In executing the warrant, Federspiel searched Morse’s apartment and found 

methamphetamine, 125.76 grams of marijuana, 70 tablets of the controlled drug 

alprazolam, a digital scale, and a box of sandwich bags. Federspiel then arrested Morse. 

¶10 On January 5, 2004, the State charged Morse with criminal possession of 

dangerous drugs with intent to distribute, criminal possession of dangerous drugs, 

possession of property subject to criminal forfeiture, endangering the welfare of a child, 

and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia. Morse moved to suppress the evidence 

found pursuant to the search warrant, arguing that the search warrant application did not 

establish probable cause. The District Court held a hearing and denied the motion by 

written order filed on July 12, 2004. 

¶11 Morse entered a plea agreement with the State filed on July 26, 2004. She pled 

guilty to criminal possession of dangerous drugs and criminal possession of drug 

paraphernalia. She reserved the right to appeal the District Court=s denial of her motion 

to suppress. The District Court sentenced Morse on September 9, 2004, and this appeal 

followed. 

¶12 This Court reviews a district court=s denial of a motion to suppress evidence to 

determine first, whether the district court=s findings of fact are clearly erroneous, and 

second, whether the district court applied the law correctly. State v. St. Marks, 2002 MT 

285, & 11, 312 Mont. 468, & 11, 59 P.3d 1113, & 11. Since the evidence at issue was 

gathered pursuant to a search warrant, we review whether the magistrate issuing the 

search warrant had a substantial basis to determine the existence of probable cause. St. 

Marks, & 12. In doing so, this Court must look solely to the information within the four 
 5

corners of the search warrant application. State v. Griggs, 2001 MT 211, & 18, 306 

Mont. 366, & 18, 34 P.3d 101, & 18. This review considers the Atotality of the 

circumstances,@ rather than Aeach individual fact@ in the search warrant application. 

State v. Beaupre, 2004 MT 300, & 37, 323 Mont. 413, & 37, 102 P.3d 504, & 37 (quoting 

St. Marks, & 22). In undertaking this review, A[t]his Court pays great deference to a 

magistrate=s determination that probable cause exists for the issuance of a search 

warrant and we will draw all reasonable inferences possible to support the issuing 

magistrate's determination of probable cause.@ Hauge v. Dist. Ct., 2001 MT 255, & 21, 

307 Mont. 195, & 21, 36 P.3d 947, & 21. 

¶13 Morse contends that the two telephone calls to the Task Force and the telephone 

call to DPHHS required further corroboration, and Federspiel=s observations at 

Morse=s apartment were insufficient to corroborate the telephone calls. After noting 

that Federspiel smelled incense and marijuana, observed the empty electric digital scale 

box, and identified the four guests as having previously been arrested for unidentified 

drug offenses, Morse asserts that only the odor of marijuana relates to criminal activity. 

She then asserts that our previous holding in State v. Olson (1979), 180 Mont. 151, 589 

P.2d 663, that a search warrant based solely on an officer=s purported smell of marijuana 

smoke does not establish probable cause, controls. Thus, the warrant must be quashed 

and the evidence gathered must be suppressed. 

¶14 The State concedes that the three telephone calls required further corroboration 

pursuant to our decision in State v. Reesman, 2000 MT 243, 301 Mont. 408, 10 P.3d 83. 

Still, the State argues that these calls are of value in the probable cause determination. 
 6

The State asserts that the criminal background checks performed by Federspiel on Morse 

and the other four people in the apartment also constituted information corroborating the 

telephone calls. Additionally, the State argues that the empty digital scale box and smell 

of marijuana further corroborated the telephone calls. 

¶15 As the State concedes that the telephone calls were not sufficient to establish 

probable cause, we turn to the question of whether the search warrant application, 

considered as a whole, was sufficient to establish the required probable cause to support 

the search warrant. We note that, while the telephone calls require further corroboration, 

they still have some probative value in determining probable cause. St. Marks, ¶ 41. 

¶16 Morse is incorrect that the only evidence of criminal activity described in the 

search warrant application was the odor of marijuana. Morse seems to argue that, in 

considering the criminal records of those in her apartment, the failure to identify the 

specific offenses they had been convicted of prevents their criminal backgrounds from 

corroborating the telephone calls. However, this Court has previously explained that 

A[a]nother routine piece of information indicating police corroboration is criminal 

background checks.@ Reesman, & 45. 

¶17 The empty electric digital scale box, considered in the context of the search 

warrant application, also contributes to a determination of probable cause. The possible 

possession of an electric digital scale does not necessarily suggest criminal activity; 

however, this Court has previously explained that information revealing human conduct 

which is suspicious when viewed in conjunction with incriminating information received 

from an informant, corroborates the information received from the informant. See

Griggs, & 50. In the present case, all three telephone calls suggested that Morse was 
 7

distributing drugs, and an electric digital scale would certainly be useful in carrying out 

such distribution. As such, the presence of the empty electric digital scale box, which 

suggested that Morse owned a sophisticated scale to weigh drugs, contributed to a 

determination of probable cause. 

¶18 The odor of marijuana also contributes to a determination of probable cause. 

Morse correctly points out that the odor of marijuana alone does not constitute probable 

cause. Olson, 180 Mont. at 155, 589 P.2d at 665. However, the present case involves 

other facts that support a determination of probable cause, including the three telephone 

calls, Morse’s criminal history with drugs, the criminal backgrounds of the other four 

people in the apartment, and the empty electric digital scale box. When considering the 

odor of marijuana along with these other facts, we conclude that the search warrant 

application established probable cause, and the District Court did not err in denying 

Morse=s motion to suppress. 

¶19 Affirmed. 

 /S/ JOHN WARNER 

We Concur: 

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY 

/S/ PATRICIA COTTER 

/S/ BRIAN MORRIS 

/S/ JIM RICE