Title: STATE v WOOD
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-469
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 18, 1983

No. 82-469 IN T H E SUPREME C O U R T OF T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1983 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, VS . BRIAN J. WOOD, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Eishteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , In and f o r t h e County of G a l l a t i n Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Marge Johnson arqued, Assistant Attorney General. Helena, Montana A. Michael Salvaqni, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana For xespondent : Thomas M. Gaa argued, Bozeman, Yontana Submitted 3 5 , 1 9 8 3 Decided: July 1 8 , 1 9 8 3 JUL I 8 1983 F i l e d : Clerk Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Prank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The S t a t e a p p e a l s t h e G a l l a t i n County D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r s u p p r e s s i n g e v i d e n c e found i n a s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o an a r r e s t f o r i s s u i n g a bad check. W e r e v e r s e . Between J u l y 1 7 , 1981, and J u l y 26, 1981, B r i a n Wood i s s u e d f o u r checks t h a t t o t a l e d $49.97, and between October 10, 1981, and October 30, 1981, he i s s u e d n i n e more t h a t t o t a l e d $181.79. Each of t h e s e checks w a s r e t u r n e d t o t h e payee because of i n s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s i n Wood's account. The p a y e e s d i d n o t c o n t a c t Wood. On November 23, 1981, t h e j u s t i c e o f t h e peace i s s u e d an a r r e s t w a r r a n t f o r Wood on t h e c h a r g e of i s s u i n g a bad check. There were no p r e v i o u s e f f o r t s t o s e c u r e h i s p r e s e n c e t o answer t h e c h a r g e o r p o s t bond. A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7:30 a.m. on December 4 , 1 9 8 1 , O f f i c e r David P e t e r s o n of t h e G a l l a t i n County s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t a r r e s t e d Wood a t h i s home. No o f f e r t o a c c e p t bond ( $ 5 0 0 ) was made nor was a " n o t i c e t o appear" o r summons t e n d e r e d i n l i e u of a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t . During t h e booking p r o c e d u r e a f u l l s e a r c h of Wood w a s conducted, and one gram of h a s h i s h was found. On March 29, 1982, i n f o r m a t i o n s were f i l e d c h a r g i n g Wood w i t h i s s u i n g a bad check and w i t h c r i m i n a i p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous d r u g s , both f e l o n i e s . Wood p l e a d g u i l t y t o i s s u i n g a bad check. However, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d h i s motion t o s u p p r e s s t h e c o n t r a b a n d on t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e a r r e s t , from which t h e s e a r c h stemmed, w a s an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n v a s i o n of p r i v a c y under S t a t e v. C a r l s o n ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Mont . , 644 P.2d 498, 39 St.Rep. 802. The lower c o u r t r u l e d t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o show a compeiilng s t a t e i n t e r e s t f o r u t i l i z i n g t h e most i n t r u s i v e means t o e f f e c t u a t e its i n t e r e s t . From t h i s r u l i n g t h e S t a t e a p p e a l s . The s o l e i s s u e f o r our c o n s i d e r a t i o n is whether a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t was p r o p e r i n t h i s c a s e . E s s e n t i a l l y , t h e S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court m i s t a k e n l y extended t h e C a r l s o n d e c i s i o n t o f e l o n i e s . The C o u r t , i n C a r l s o n , c l e a r l y l i m i t e d i t s r u l i n g t o t r a f f i c - r e l a t e d misdemeanors. The i n t e r e s t s of s o c i e t y i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e is g r e a t e r h e r e t h a n i n C a r l s o n s i n c e a f e l o n y is involved. T h i s is a s u f f i c i e n t compelling i n t e r e s t t o j u s t i f y a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t . W e hold t h e a r r e s t was n o t a v i o l a t i o n of Wood's c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t of p r i v a c y . F u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t s , supported by a w a r r a n t , f o r f e l o n i e s a r e proper. F i r s t o f a l l , t h e apprehension of f e l o n y s u s p e c t s is a compelling s t a t e i n t e r e s t t h a t j u s t i f i e s a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t p u r s u a n t t o a w a r r a n t . T h i s Court h e l d i n S t a t e ex r e l . Zander v. District Court ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 180 Mont. 548, 591 P.2d 656, " [ t l h e r i g h t of i n d i v i d u a l p r i v a c y must y i e l d t o a compelling s t a t e i n t e r e s t . Such compelling s t a t e i n t e r e s t e x i s t s where t h e s t a t e e n f o r c e s i t s c r i m i n a l laws f o r t h e b e n e f i t and p r o t e c t i o n of o t h e r fundamental r i g h t s of i t s c i t i z e n s . " 180 Mont. a t 556, 591 P.2d a t 660. The appre- hension of f e l o n s is proper enforcement of c r i m i n a l laws that w i l l b e n e f i t a l l c i t i z e n s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , the enforcement of laws p r o h i b i t i n g t h e i s s u a n c e of bad checks p r o t e c t s v a l u a b l e fundamental r i g h t s of c i t i z e n s . Second, C a r l s o n is l i m i t e d t o t r a f f i c - r e l a t e d misde- meanors. I n C a r l s o n t h i s Court a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e whether a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t was proper f o r misdemeanor t r a f f i c o f f e n s e s . C a r l s o n was involved i n a t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t where- upon he t o l d t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g p o l i c e t h a t he had a l i c e n s e b u t d i d n o t have it w i t h him. The p o l i c e could n o t immedi- a t e l y check on t h i s s t o r y . L a t e r , p o l i c e found d e f e n d a n t was d r i v i n g w i t h a revoked l i c e n s e ; t h u s , t h e c i t y c l e r k was t o l d t o m a i l two " n o t i c e s t o appear" t o d e f e n d a n t f o r d r i v i n g w i t h o u t a l i c e n s e and o b s t r u c t i n g an o f f i c e r . The n o t i c e s summoned t h e d e f e n d a n t t o appear on March 11, 1981. The n o t i c e s were - n o t mailed and when t h e d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o a p p e a r , t h e p o l i c e o b t a i n e d a w a r r a n t and a r r e s t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t . When t h e a r r e s t o c c u r r e d i n d e f e n d a n t ' s home, c o n t r a b a n d was observed. P o l i c e l a t e r o b t a i n e d a s e a r c h w a r r a n t and s e i z e d t h e contraband. Defendant was charged w i t h c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous d r u g s and t h e f t , a l l f e l o n i e s . The D i s t r i c t Court suppressed t h e s e i z e d e v i d e n c e b e c a u s e d e f e n d a n t ' s F o u r t h Amendment r i g h t s had b e e n v i o l a t e d . T h i s Court h e l d t h a t e n t r y by t h e p o l i c e p u r s u a n t t o t h e a r r e s t w a r r a n t was u n r e a s o n a b l e a s t h e r e was no j u s t i f i - c a t i o n o r exigency f o r a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t . Hence, t h e o b s e r v a t i o n of t h e contraband was a w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h which is always presumed unreasonable. C a r l s o n , 6 4 4 P.2d a t 504, 39 St.Rep. a t 810. The r a t i o n a l e f o r o u r h o l d i n g was b a s e d o n t h e misdemeanor t r a f f i c o f f e n s e s . Applied t o such o f f e n s e s , t h e r e were l e s s i n t r u s i v e means t o accomplish t h e S t a t e ' s o b j e c t i v e ; t h e r e f o r e , no compelling i n t e r e s t e x i s t e d f o r t h e S t a t e ' s i n v a s i o n of C a r l s o n ' s p r i v a c y . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e d e f e n d a n t was never n o t i f i e d of t h e t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n s and t h e r e is a s p e c i f i c municipal p o l i c y t h a t p r e v e n t s a r r e s t s f o r t r a f f i c o f f e n s e s u n l e s s t h e accused d o e s n o t respond t o n o t i c e s . W e noted o t h e r o p t i o n s less i n t r u s i v e t h a n an a r r e s t t h a t t h e c i t y could have u t i l i z e d b u t d i d n o t . F u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n t h a t C a r l s o n is l i m i t e d t o t r a f f i c - r e l a t e d misdemeanors is found i n t h e l a s t paragraph of t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n . W e s t a t e d : ". . . i f w e were t o s u s t a i n t h e e n t r y by t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s a s r e a s o n a b l e , t h e r e would be few i n s t a n c e s i n t h e s e r v i c e of w a r r a n t s of a r r e s t f o r t r a f f i c - r e l a t e d o f f e n s e s when t h e o f f i c e r s would n o t g a i n e n t r a n c e i n s i d e t h e home. Few p e r s o n s a r e f u l l y d r e s s e d and ready f o r t h e s t r e e t when they answer t h e door i n response t o a knock. I n e v i t a b l y t h e s e a r c h would be held i n c i d e n t t o t h e a r r e s t , and n o t v i c e v e r s a . The C i r c u i t C o u r t of Appeals f o r t h e Ninth C i r c u i t h a s been c a r e f u l t o avoid opening up s e a r c h e s on t h e b a s i s of t r a f f i c - r e l a t e d a r r e s t s , T a g l e v o r e v . United S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 291 F.2d 262; a s has t h e F i f t h C i r c u i t , Amador-Gonzalez v. United S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 391 F.2d 308." 644 P.2d a t 505, 39 St.Rep. a t 811. C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e r e e r r o n e o u s l y extended C a r l s o n t o f e l o n i e s . Wood was charged w i t h a v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 45-6-316(1), MCA, a f e l o n y , and a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t was p r o p e r p u r s u a n t t o a v a l i d w a r r a n t . T h i r d , i f e v e r y f e l o n y a r r e s t s u p p o r t e d by a w a r r a n t was s u b j e c t t o heightened j u d i c i a l s c r u t i n y , l a w enforcement would be unreasonably burdened. I n e f f e c t , t h e p o l i c e would have no c l e a r g u i d e l i n e s t o d e t e r m i n e whether a p a r t i c u l a r a r r e s t w i l l be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y c o r r e c t . The o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u p p r e s s i n g t h e e v i d e n c e is v a c a t e d , and t h e c a u s e remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. Chief ~ustice \ 'L J u s t i c e s M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea w i l l f i l e a s e p a r a t e opinion l a t e r .