Title: STATE v BALLEW
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12508
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 26, 1973

No. 12508 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1973 T H E STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS - RAYMOND JOHN B A L L E W , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : James Goetz argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas J. Beers, Assistant Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Thomas A. Olson, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: September 27, 1973 ~ e c i d e d :f#DY E 6 1 g G Hon. Alfred B. Coate, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison, delivered the Opinion of the Court. Appellant, Raymond John Ballew, appeals from a conviction of possession of dangerous drugs i n violation of section 54-133, R.C.M. 1947, and denial of h i s motion t o suppress evidence. T r i a l was held i n the d i s t r i c t court of Gallatin County without a jury. Appellant does not a l l e g e e r r o r concerning h i s t r i a l and, therefore, we w i l l only consider the ruling on the motion t o suppress evidence. Appellant was arrested i n h i s cabin near West Yellowstone, Montana on July 22, 1972. The b a s i s of the a r r e s t was evidence of marijuana found i n appellant's bedroom during a search made pursuant t o a search warrant issued on July 21, 1972, by Justice of the Peace Alexander Schmall i n Bozeman, Montana. The application f o r search warrant read: ''Doug Taylor, Bozeman Police Department, being f i r s t duly sworn, s t a t e s a s follows: "1. That he i s a police o f f i c e r assigned the the City-County Crime Team, whose area of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s Gallatin County, Montana. That included i n the d u t i e s of said Crime Team is the investigation of i l l i c i t drug t r a f f i c . "2. That a confidential informant has been working with said Crime team and has provided in- formation concerning the i l l i c i t t r a f f i c k i n g of drugs. "3. That s a i d informant, during the month of July, went t o two cabins, located near the Duck Creek ' Y ' , near West Yellowstone, Montana, occupied by persons unknown. That these two cabins a r e more p a r t i c u l a r l y described a s follows: "TWO log cabins, located near o f f i c e building a t Koelzer's Duck Creek Cabins, near West Yellowstone, Montana. "4. That while i n one said cabin, c l o s e s t t o the manager's o f f i c e , the informant actually ob- served large q u a n t i t i e s of marijuana, packaged i n individual p l a s t i c bags, and said informant was t o l d the other cabin contained LSD, a dangerous drug. "5. That said informant has given Officer Taylor a sample of t h i s quantity of marijuana which was pur- chased by t h e informant from the occupants of the cabins. Officer Taylor has examined the substance and found it t o be marijuana, a dangerous drug under Montana law. " 6 . That Officer Taylor has used the in- formant on d i f f e r e n t occasions and found the in- formation then given t o be accurate. "7. Based upon the foregoing informa tion, Officer Taylor reasonably believes t h e cabins described above w i l l contain q u a n t i t i e s of mari- juana and LSD, dangerous drugs under Montana law, and requests a search warrant issued according t o law. I t J u s t i c e of the Peace Schmall issued the following search warrant : "TO THE STATE O F MONTANA, TO ANY SHERIFF OR C O N S T A B L E OR ANY POLICEMAN O F ANY TOWN WITHIN THE STATE O F MONTANA : "Affidavit on oath, having been t h i s day made before m e by Doug Taylor, a policeman f o r the City of Bozeman, Montana, s e t t i n g f o r t h t h a t the defendant, JOHN DOE, i s believed t o have i n h i s possession the following: "a quantity of LSD and a quantity of marijuana, i n two cabins located near the Duck Creek ' Y ' , near West Yellowstone, Montana, near the o f f i c e building a t Koelzerls Duck Creek cabins, o r concealed on h i s person. "YOU ARE THEREFORE COMMANDED, forthwith and within ten days from the issuing date of t h i s warrant, a t any time of day o r night t o make immed- i a t e search on the above-described cabins and on t h e person of John Doe for: "A quantity of LSD, a dangerous drug, and A quantity of marijuana, a dangerous drug 1 I and i f you can find the same, o r any p a r t thereof, you a r e forthwith t o bring it before m e with your r e t u r n endorsed thereon. "DATED t h i s 21st day of July, A.D., 1972. I I Appellant's cabin was one of four cabins located near the 11 11 Y i n the Duck Creek road i n r u r a l Gallatin County, Montana. The nearest community t o the cabins i s West Yellowstone, Montana. The four cabins a r e log buildings, one of which i s used a s the o f f i c e building and landlord's residence. The other three cabins a r e r e n t a l units. One of the r e n t a l cabins i s located f o r t y yards from the o f f i c e building. The next r e n t a l cabin, the one which appellant rented, i s located seventy-five yards from the office building. The remaining rental cabin is located one hundred twenty-five yards by the road, or one hundred yards by a direct line, from the office building. Appellant moved to suppress the evidence seized on the basis of an unconstitutional issuance of the search warrant. The motion was denied and trial was held in the district court without a jury on December 15, 1972. Appellant was convicted of the misdemeanor of possessing a dangerous drug, less than 60 grams of marijuana. Appellant presents three issues for review: I. Whether the search warrant constitutes a general search warrant? 2. Whether there was a sufficient demonstration of the reliability or credibility of the undisclosed informant? 3. Whether the information in the application for the search warrant was sufficient for a finding of probable cause by the justice of the peace3 In his first issue appellant contends the search warrant was defective in that it did not specify the precise place to be searched with the degree of identity required by law; thus it was a general warrant and,therefore, void. The state contends that the test which should be applied is: whether the description of the property to be searched was sufficient to enable the officer armed with the search warrant to ascertain and identify with reasonable effort the place to be searched. Both the federal and Montana constitutions require that a search warrant particularly describe the place to be searched. Regarding the Montana constitutional provision in Article 111, 5 7, Montana Constitution of 1889 (Article 11, 5 11, Montana Constitution of 1972), this Court in State ex rel. King v. District Court, 70 Mont. 191, 197, 198, 224 P . 862, said: 11 It is provided expressly that no warrant to search any place or seize any person or thing shall issue without describing the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized. We do not overlook the fact that in our section 7, supra, the word "particularly' which aypears i n the fourth amend- ment before the words describing the place t o be searched' i s omitted; but we do not regard the omission as important. The meaning i s the same. The warrant must designate the premises t o be searched and contain a description so specific and accurate a s t o avoid any unnecessary o r un- authorized invasion of the r i g h t of privacy. To t h i s end it should i d e n t i f y the property i n such manner a s t o leave t o the o f f i c e r no discretion a s t o the premises t o be searched." (Emphasis added) Section 95-704, R.C.M. 1947, provides the grounds f o r a search warrant: 11 Any judge may issue a search warrant upon the written application of any person t h a t an offense has been committed, made under oath o r affirmation before him which: "(a) States f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t t o show probable cause f o r issuance of the warrant, (b) Particularly describes the place or things t o be searched, and "(c) Particularly describes the things t o be seized. I' Section 95-703, R.C.M. 1947, defines a search warrant: 11 A search warrant i s an order i n writing, i n the name of the s t a t e , signed by a judge, p a r t i c u l a r l y describing the thing o r place t o be searched and the instruments, a r t i c l e s o r things t o be seized, directed t o a peace o f f i c e r , commanding him t o search f o r per- sonal property and bring i t before the judge. " This Court i n p r i o r cases has established a s u f f i c i e n t description of the place o r thing t o be searched which meets the requirement of p a r t i c u l a r i t y . I n S t a t e v. Quigg, 155 Mont. 119, 133, 467 P.2d 692, the Court upheld the v a l i d i t y of the search warrant and a s t o the p a r t i c u l a r i t y of the place t o be searched, we noted t h a t the exact address was given i n the warrant. Further, the particul- a r i t y about the location of the premises t o be searched was not questionable, despite t h e f a c t t h a t the name of the c i t y was not s e t f o r t h i n the search warrant. I n S t a t e v. Meidmger, Mont . , 502 P.2d 58, 29 St. Rep. 861, 866, The Court found t h a t a search warrant describing the thing t o be searched a s "'a 1969 blue one-half ton Chevrolet pickup, Montana license number 2~-5275' t h a t i s located i n Custer County garage i n the City of Miles City, County of Custer, S t a t e of Montana." met t h e requirement of p a r t i c u l a r i t y . I n both c i t e d cases there can be no question a s t o the description of the place and thing t o be searched. However, i n t h e i n s t a n t case the search warrant directed a search of "two cabins located near the Duck Creek 'Y' * * JC near t h e o f f i c e building a t Koelzer's Duck Creek cabins". There were i n f a c t three cabins i n the area of the o f f i c e building. The search warrant was issued t o search two separate residences which were occupied by two d i f f e r e n t groups of people but without the p a r t i c u l a r i t y which is required. Here, we find t h e search warrant invalid f o r t h e reason t h a t it did not contain the p a r t i c u l a r description of the property t o be searched required by the Constitution and the s t a t u t e . Since the search warrant was invalid, the seizure of the drugs pursuant t o section 95-701, R.C.M. 1947, was invalid. Appellant's remaining issues need not be resolved a t t h i s time because of our finding a s t o the lack of p a r t i c u l a r i t y of description. The conviction i s reversed and the cause remanded t o the d i s t r i c t court with d i r e c t i evidence. Coate, d i s t r i c t judge, s t i c e John Conway Harrison. JUS t i c e s : * . "