Title: STATE v BROUGH
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13434
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 29, 1976

No. 13434 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1976 STATE O F M O N T A N A , P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - STEVEN A L L E N BROUGH , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Twelfth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable B. W. Thomas, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana John F. North argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Ronald W. Smith argued, County Attorney, Havre, Montana For Respondent : Weber, Bosch, Kuhr and Dugdale, Havre, Montana John Warner argued, Havre, Montana Submitted: October 12, 1976 Decided : NOQ 2 9 1976 Filed : FiQt 2 $ 4 1976 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The S t a t e of Montana appeals from an order of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , H i l l County, t h e Hon. B. W. Thomas res siding, suppressing a s evidence marijuana found i n t h e trunk of defendant's car. The c o u r t found t h e evidence was seized i n an i l l e g a l search without a search warrant, t h a t t h e S t a t e had f a i l e d t o prove de- f e n d a n t ' s consent t o t h e search was voluntary, and t h a t t h e r e was no probable cause f o r a search of t h e c a r without a warrant. W e affirm. O f f i c e r G i l l i e s o f t h e Havre P o l i c e Department stopped a c a r f o r speeding 4 5 m.p.h. i n a 25 m.p.h. speed zone a t 2:20 a.m. on January 31, 1976, a Saturday. Defendant Brough, t h e d r i v e r , a Havre r e s i d e n t and former high school classmate of Officer G i l l i e ~ ~ i r n m e d i a t e l y g o t o u t of t h e c a r . O f f i c e r G i l l i e s recognized Brough and c a l l e d him by name. G i l l i e s shone h i s f l a s h - l i g h t i n s i d e t h e c a r and observed a C-B r a d i o and c a r s t e r e o on t h e f l o o r on t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e , a s t e r e o on t h e back s e a t , and a screwdriver, p l i e r s and wrench on t h e f l o o r i n t h e back. The C-B r a d i o matched t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of s e v e r a l C-B r a d i o s t h a t had been reported s t o l e n . Defendant Brough and t h e passenger i n h i s c a r , Cross, were taken i n t o custody on suspicion of possessing s t o l e n prop- e r t y . The c a r was impounded i n t h e p o l i c e garage. Defendant Brough and Cross s a t i n t h e p o l i c e c a r o u t s i d e t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n f o r 15-20 minutes alone and handcuffed. Then they were taken i n t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n , r e l i e v e d of t h e i r personal possessions, and placed i n adjoining c e l l s . Both were given t h e Miranda warning. During t h i s t i m e defendant Brough placed a t i n f o i l packet on t h e booking counter, s a i d he d i d n o t know what it was, and it subsequently w a s determined t o c o n t a i n no dangerous drug o r anything i l l e g a l . Defendant Brough was n o t allowed t o p o s t bond on t h e t r a f f i c charge although t h e o f f i c e r s w e r e authorized t o r e c e i v e bond. H i s appearance was set f o r t h e following Monday. O f f i c e r G i l l k s t w i c e asked defendant Brough t o consent t o a s e a r c h of h i s c a r and Brough w a s t o l d he would remain i n j a i l u n t i l h i s c a r was searched e i t h e r with h i s consent o r w i t h a s e a r c h warrant and t h a t he would g e t o u t of j a i l i f he consented t o t h e search. Brough d i d n o t consent a t t h i s t i m e . Brough w a s n o t allowed t o make a phone c a l l . Brough's f a t h e r came t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n about 4:00 a . m . and (1) was n o t allowed t o see h i s son, ( 2 ) was n o t informed of t h e charge a g a i n s t h i s son, and ( 3 ) was n o t informed of t h e amount of b a i l . Brough was n o t informed of h i s f a t h e r ' s v i s i t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t made an express f i n d i n g t h a t Brough w a s held incommunicado i n j a i l . The next morning defendant Brough was taken t o a s m a l l c u b i c l e i n t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n by Sgt. Stremcha and O f f i c e r Stinson f o r t h e purpose of g e t t i n g h i s consent t o a s e a r c h of h i s c a r . Brough was t o l d t h a t i f he d i d n o t consent, a s e a r c h warrant would be secured anyway h i s c a r would be searched, and t h a t Brough's consent would save them t i m e and paper work. Brough was r e l u c t a n t b u t f i n a l l y gave h i s consent. Marijuana w a s found i n t h e trunk of t h e c a r . A f t e r consent was given, Brough w a s allowed t o p o s t $100 bond on t h e t r a f f i c charge and was r e l e a s e d from j a i l . L a t e r t h e r e c k l e s s d r i v i n g charge was reduced t o c a r e l e s s d r i v i n g and Brough pled g u i l t y t o it. The i s s u e on appeal is whether t h e marijuana was p r o p e r l y suppressed a s i l l e g a l l y obtained. N o s e a r c h warrant was e v e r obtained. The S t a t e contends t h e consent was v a l i d , o r t h a t l a c k i n g consent, t h e r e was probable cause f o r t h e s e a r c h of t h e car's t r u n k without a warrant. The f i r s t determination is whether Brough's consent w a s v o l u n t a r i l y given. W e a f f i r m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s r u l i n g t h a t t h e consent was coerced. The case of S t a t e ex rel. Kotwicki v. District Court, 166 Mont. 335, 532 P.2d 694 (1975), involved a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n , however, t h e f a c t s of t h a t c a s e l a c k t h e c o e r c i v e t e n o r of t h e p o l i c e procedure here. Kotwicki was a t r a n s i e n t picked up on t h e i n t e r s t a t e highway f o r speeding, w a s o f f e r e d bond b u t could n o t pay, was allowed t o u s e t h e phone, and was only t o be j a i l e d u n t i l h i s f r i e n d a r r i v e d w i t h t h e $15 bond money. H i s person was searched before being placed i n a j a i l c e l l , and he spon- taneously admitted a p l a s t i c bag found i n h i s shoe contained marijuana. When asked i f h i s c a r could be searched, he spontan- eously admitted it was f u l l of marijuana. H e acknowledged a w r i t t e n statement of h i s r i g h t t o r e f u s e consent t o t h e search. The prosecution has t h e burden of proving by clear posi- t i v e evidence t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l f r e e l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y gave h i s unequivocal and s p e c i f i c consent t o search, uncontaminated by any d u r e s s o r coercion, a c t u a l o r implied. S t a t e v. LaFlamme, Mont . , 551 P.2d 1011, 33 St.Rep. 632, 634, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . A s was s t a t e d i n Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U . S . 218, 36 L Ed 2d 854, 863, 93 S.Ct. 2041 (1973): " * * * t h e q u e s t i o n whether a consent was i n f a c t ' v o l u n t a r y ' o r w a s t h e product of d u r e s s o r coercion, express o r implied, i s a q u e s t i o n of f a c t t o be determined from t h e t o t a l i t y of a l l t h e circumstances. * * *" The evidence a s r e c i t e d h e r e i n was s u f f i c i e n t t o support t h e f i n d i n g of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of l a c k of v o l u n t a r i n e s s . The S t a t e n e x t contends t h a t even i f t h e consent was in- v a l i d , t h e r e was probable cause t o s e a r c h without a warrant. I n support o f i t s contention t h e S t a t e o f f e r s t h e follow- ing statements of f a c t and inferences: That many C-B r a d i o s had been s t o l e n o u t of v e h i c l e s i n t h e Havre area; t h a t t h e s e r a d i o s a r e more e a s i l y s t o l e n without d e t e c t i o n of t h e t h i e f i n t h e e a r l y morning before s u n r i s e ; t h a t Brough was o u t d r i v i n g a t 2:20 a.m.; t h a t he was speeding; t h a t when O f f i c e r G i l l i e s turned on h i s red l i g h t s t o p u l l him over, Brough continued t o pass s e v e r a l c a r s ; t h a t when Brough f i n a l l y stopped, he immed- i a t e l y emerged from t h e auto; t h a t O f f i c e r G i l l i e s observed a C-B r a d i o and c a r s t e r e o on t h e f l o o r of t h e c a r on t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e i n a v e r t i c a l p o s i t i o n a s i f they had been supported by Brough's l e g ; t h a t i n t h e back seat, p a r t i a l l y covered, was a s t e r e o t a p e player of t h e v a r i e t y not u s u a l l y found mounted i n automobiles, and; a l s o i n t h e back s e a t were t o o l s of t h e type commonly used i n b u r g l a r i e s . The S t a t e argues t h a t from a l l t h e s e f a c t s a reasonable prudent man would i n f e r t h a t a t h e f t had been committed and t h a t evidence of t h e t h e f t was t o be found i n Brough's vehicle. W e a f f i r m t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s finding t h a t t h e p o l i c e suspicions a s t o t h e p o s s i b l e s t o l e n c h a r a c t e r of t h e C-B r a d i o and s t e r e o which they could s e e i n defendant's c a r , a s w e l l a s t h e p o s s i b l e burglar t o o l s , do not provide probable cause f o r a search of t h e trunk of t h e vehicle. The following a d d i t i o n a l f a c t s were before t h e Court. There was no high speed chase o r attempt t o f l e e . The o f f i c e r s had no r e p o r t s of t h e f t s occurring t h a t n i g h t o r d e s c r i p t i o n s tying defendant t o any crime. The C-B r a d i o and c a r s t e r e o were mounted i n t h e c a r and attached with screws. Brough claims t h e C-B r a d i o and c a r s t e r e o a r e h i s and t h e t a p e player i n t h e backseat belongs t o h i s brother. N o one e l s e had claimed them o r i d e n t i f i e d them a s being s t o l e n . The screwdriver, p l i e r s and wrench found on t h e floor in the back seat of Brough's automobile add nothing to the State's claims as they are as equally usable for noncriminal purposes as they are for burglar tools. In both State v. Spielmann, 163 Mont. 199, 516 P.2d 617, and Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 26 L Ed 2d 419, 90 S.Ct. 1975, the officers had information from eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime which was particular and reliable, wliich matched the defendants, their clothing and automobile when they were intercepted a short time after the crime. This case is also distinguished from Hooks v. State of Oklahoma, 394 F.Supp. 1262 (1975), involving the search of a car stopped for speeding at 4:00 a.m. after it attempted to elude the pursuit. The officers saw four new tires in the back seat still bearing price tags. When the occupants gave an in- credible account of them, the officers opened the trunk and found five more tires and a tool box later determined to be stolen from a service station that night. Since we affirm the district court's finding of lack of probable cause for the search, it is unnecessary to decide the question of whether the officers could proceed without a search warrant after impounding the car overnight at the police garage and admittedly having time to obtain a warrant under the recent decision of Texas v. White, 423 U.S. 67, 46 L Ed 2d 209, 96 S.Ct. 304 (1975). See White v. State, (Tex.Crim.App. (1974)) 521 S.W.2d 255, 257, the same case, rehearing denied, holding the exigencies required for a warrantless search of the car were not present 30 to 50 minutes after the car had been taken to the station and the defendant arrested. The order of the district court is affirmed. Justice - 6 - , / ~fh-ief J u s t i c e on. & ~ d ~ L. ~ c ~ i n n d n , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s . I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA No. 13434 STATE O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, vs. S T E V E N ALLEN BROUGH, Defendant and Respondent. C U R K OF SUPREME COURT: S.'UUF; Q& MONTANA ORDER AMENDING OPINION The following amendment of t h e above named opinion decided on November 29, 1976, i s hereby ordered: Beginning with t h e eighth l i n e from t h e bottom of t h e 6th page please amend t h e opinion t o read as follows: "garage and admittedly having time t o obtain a warrant i n l i g h t of t h e recent decision of Texas v. White, 423 U.S. 67, 4 6 L E d 2d 209, 96 S.Ct. 304 (1975), reversing White v. S t a t e , (Tex.Crim.App. (1974) ) 521 S.W.2d 255, 257, which had held t h e exigencies required f o r a warrantless search of t h e c a r were not present 30 t o 50 minutes a f t e r t h e c a r had been taken t o t h e s t a t i o n and t h e defendant arrested." / D A T E D t h i s 7 t h da Chief J u s t i c e