Title: State v. Troglia
Citation: 482 P.2d 143
Docket Number: 11881
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: March 9, 1971

482 P.2d 143 (1971) The STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Richard TROGLIA, Defendant and Respondent. No. 11881. Supreme Court of Montana. March 9, 1971. *144 Robert L. Woodahl, Atty. Gen., J.C. Weingartner (argued), Asst. Atty. Gen., Helena, Lawrence G. Stimatz, County Atty., Butte, for plaintiff and appellant. John T. Mullany (argued), Butte, for defendant and respondent. SID G. STEWART,[*] District Judge. From a judgment granting a motion to suppress evidence, entered in the district court of the Second Judicial District of the State of Montana, in and for the county of Silver Bow, the State of Montana appealed. On August 11, 1969, Silver Bow County law enforcement personnel searched the premises of Richard Troglia (hereinafter referred to as respondent) under the authority of a search warrant, issued by Justice of the Peace, J.J. Winston. A quantity of dangerous drugs was found in the respondent's residence, at 1923 Thorton Avenue, Butte, Montana. The respondent was charged with violating the provisions of the Montana Dangerous Drug Act, section 54-133, R.C.M. 1947, namely, possessing dangerous drugs. The motion for leave to file information was granted on August 28, 1969. Respondent entered a plea of not guilty on September 2, 1969. On February 27, 1970, respondent filed a motion to suppress the evidence found during the search, contending that the application for the search warrant was defective and did not satisfy the requirements of recent United States Supreme Court decisions. On March 10, 1970, the Honorable James D. Freebourn granted respondent's motion and suppressed the evidence. The State of Montana (hereinafter referred to as appellant) appeals from that order pursuant to section 95-2403, R.C.M. 1947. The application for search warrant read as follows: The United States Supreme Court, in the cases of Aguilar v. State of Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S. Ct. 1509, 12 L. Ed. 2d 723, and Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S. Ct. 584, 21 L. Ed. 2d 637, have together set out the requirements as to what is necessary to be contained in a sworn application, or affidavit, in order for a magistrate to consider, or issue, a search warrant, which decisions were discussed at length by this Court in State ex rel. Glantz v. District Court, 154 Mont. 132, 461 P.2d 193 and State v. Bentley, 156 Mont. 129, 477 P.2d 345, 27 St.Rep. 760. Aguilar set out the rule as follows: The Spinelli decision affirmed the Aguilar requirements, and in commenting upon hearsay reports, Justice White, concurring with the majority opinion, stated: The court in the majority opinion said: The court further set out the standards for reviewing magistrates' decisions in granting the application for search warrants in the following language: In the case now under consideration this Court finds that in applying all of the requirements of Aguilar and Spinelli that by means of the application, or affidavit presented to the magistrate he was advised: (1) That the hearsay information given to Officer Burns was the direct personal observations of the informant, together with reliable information as to the present status of the situation. (2) That informants are reliable and credible, not only because of Officer Burns' personal acquaintance with them, but also they are upstanding members of the community and have never been convicted of a felony. (3) The corroborative statement of Officer Burns, and other law enforcement officers, that the person to be searched is a dangerous drug user and associate of narcotic and dangerous drug users. This statement alone would not be sufficient to justify the magistrate to issue a warrant, but as part of a complete statement of facts, and to corroborate the informants' information, it is certainly pertinent and important, as corroboration, in the presentation of the application for the search warrant. Therefore, all of the requirements of the Aguilar and Spinelli decisions having been complied with, it is the ruling of this Court that the application filed with Justice of the Peace J.J. Winston was sufficient for the issuance of the search warrant, and that the motion to suppress the evidence obtained under that warrant should have been denied. The cause is remanded to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. JAMES T. HARRISON, C.J., and DALY, HASWELL and CASTLES, JJ., concur. [*] Sitting in place of JOHN C. HARRISON, J.