Title: STATE v MARSHALL
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13739
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 1, 1977

No. 13739 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1977 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, VS . NORMAN BENJAMIN MARSHALL, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas Budewitz, County Attorney, Townsend, Montana Robert Yunck argued, Cut Bank, Montana For Respondent: Hooks and Sherlock, Townsend, Montana Patrick F. Hooks argued, Townsend, Montana Submitted: September 15, 1977 -. Decided: h; v - Filed: M r . Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. The s t a t e of Montana brings this appeal from an order of the District Court, Broadwa t e r County, suppressing certain evidence the s t a t e sought t o introduce i n the t r i a l of defendant, Norman Benjamin Marshall, charged with possession of dangerous drugs. The evidence i n question is a container of marijuana seized from under the seat of a truck driven by defendant. The order suppressing the evidence did not specify findings of fact or conclusions of law, and therefore the issue is whether the search of the truck driven by defendant and the seizure of dangerous drugs found therein was lawful. O n Saturday afternoon, October 16, 1976, Officer Walrod, driving on Highway 287 north of Townsend, Montana, saw a truck driven by Marshall with two companions, Larry Wing and M i s s Cathy Cross. Walrod knew Wing did some fishing and they were headed toward the Missouri River. H e then radioed the f i s h and game warden, because he "thought they might be doing some fishing and it might not hurt t o check them out." There was no evidence any of the three occupants of the truck ever got near the river and the f i s h and game warden, J i m Bird, admitted he did not check them out for fishing. Warden Bird was dispatched by Walrod t o check the truck and its occupants. Warden Bird t e s t i f i e d that as he drove up the Indian Creek Road he approached the tsuek which was stopped on the road and thought Cathy Cross said, from h i s l i p reading, "Here comes J i m Bird", Bird stated he thought they were a l l hiding something so he went up on a h i l l about 200 yards distant and looked a t them through a 60 power spotting scope. I n answer t o questions from the t r i a l judge, Bird stated he was looking i n the rear window of the truck a t the occupants from behind and admitted he could not see below the seat level. The significant fact of ~ i r d ' s testimony, relied upon by the s t a t e , is h i s statement: "* * * I saw M r . Marshall get something from right here (indicating) and reach down underneath the vehicle or underneath the seat with h i s l e f t hand, leaning towards Cathy Cross, and stuff it under the seat, and I informed Officer Walrod of t h i s when I called him on the radio." Warden Bird admitted that a l l he saw was an arm movement and he could not see what the object was from h i s position. Further, Bird t e s t i f i e d he saw the occupants smoking, but did not know whether it was a pipe, a cigarette or what, but as far as he knew it could have been tobacco. Walrod t e s t i f i e d Bird radioed him about the driver leaning over and putting something under the seat and that they were smoking something. A t that time Walrod did not have any idea how f a r away Bird was from the vehicle. There were no reports of any fishing violation. Acting solely on the information supplied by radio from Bird, Walrod drove t o a point near the intersection of the highway and the Indian Creek Road and stopped the vehicle. Walrod then went up t o the truck, stated he detected an odor of marijuana and ordered Marshall t o get out of the truck and empty h i s pockets. Before t h i s Court concerns i t s e l f with the issue of the search and seizure, we face the threshold question which is: Was the ''stop" of the defendant supported by probable cause and thus reasonable and therefore constitutional? A recent decision of t h i s Court which is very close in point of fact and law is State v. Lahr, - M o n t . , 560 P. 2d 527, 34 St.Rep. 90 (1977). There, an officer was watching the defendant and two other persons through binoculars. A s i n the instant case, the officer was aware of the individual's reputation as a known drug user, The officer t e s t i f i e d a package appeared hands t o chang& he had no idea what kind of package, only that the circumstances were somewhat suspicious and he saw something, but he did not know what it was. I n - Lahr the observing officer radioed another officer who stopped the vehicle on an alleged driving violation. While making the a r r e s t on the driving violation, the officer saw marijuana on the console of defendantb car and defendant was arrested for i l l e g a l possession of danger- out drugs. The defendant was never charged with a driving viola- tion. Again, compare with the instant case. Here, Officer Walrod did not even look for a pretext. H e stopped the car when it came down the Indian Creek Road and clearly t h i s was before he could detect any smell of marijuana. This Court, i n - 2 Lahr held that neither officer had probable cause t o a r r e s t the defendant and stated: "The evidence required t o establish g u i l t is not necessary t o prove probable cause for an a r r e s t , however good f a i t h or mere suspicion on the part of arresting officers is not enough. * * * Furthermore, an a r r e s t is not justified by what the subsequent search discloses ," 34 S t .Rep. 93. Warden Bird i n the instant case had only h i s suspicions, related heretofore. Officer Walrod, the arresting officer, was not present a t the scene and had only the suspicions that Warden Bird told him over the radio. Thereafter, based solely on Warden Bird's conjecture and speculation the automobile being driven by defendant Marshall down a country road on a Saturday afternoon was stopped, The stop of the automobile and subsequent events were without probable cause, therefore the District Court' s order t o suppress the evidence i s affirmed. W e Concur: \. - - _ i < d - - Chief Justice K