Opinion ID: 887226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 14 Whether probable cause existed to support the warrantless seizure of Pierce's truck. ¶ 15 Pierce contends that Officer Hoffman lacked probable cause to seize and impound his truck and thereby violated his right to be protected against unreasonable seizure. Officer Hoffman seized Pierce's truck without a warrant, after arresting him based on his outstanding warrants, when he placed evidence tape around the truck and had it towed and impounded. Officer Hoffman did so, however, only after smelling burnt marijuana in the truck and Pierce admitted that someone had smoked marijuana in the truck. ¶ 16 This matter mirrors State v. Broell (1991), 249 Mont. 117, 122, 814 P.2d 44, 47, where Broell argued that the police unlawfully seized his car when they impounded it without a warrant before the issuance of a search warrant. We held that a warrantless seizure of a car fell under the automobile exception to illegal searches and seizures and is permissible where there is probable cause to believe that such automobile's contents `offend against the law.' Broell, 249 Mont. at 122, 814 P.2d at 47 (citing State v. Evjen (1988), 234 Mont. 516, 765 P.2d 708). ¶ 17 Pierce contends that Broell should not control this matter as we have since rejected the automobile exception and demands that a warrantless search of an automobile requires the existence of probable cause as well as a generally applicable exception to the warrant requirement such as a plain view search, a search incident to arrest, or exigent circumstances. State v. Elison, 2000 MT 288, ¶¶ 53-54, 302 Mont. 228, ¶¶ 53-54, 14 P.3d 456, ¶¶ 53-54. Pierce claims that he maintained a privacy interest in his truck and invites us to apply Montana's fundamental right to privacy under Article II, Section 10, of the Montana Constitution to the seizure of his truck. He points to State v. Martinez, 2003 MT 65, ¶ 52, 314 Mont. 434, ¶ 52, 67 P.3d 207, ¶ 52, where we held that a traffic stop based on an unreliable tip constituted an unconstitutional infringement on Martinez's right to privacy. ¶ 18 Pierce seemingly again forgets, however, that Officer Hoffman smelled the burnt marijuana, not based on a tip, but because he requested that Officer Hoffman retrieve his phone book from the truck. Pierce apparently also has a memory lapse regarding his own admission, and not that of an informant's admission, that someone had committed the offense of smoking marijuana inside of the truck. We therefore reject Pierce's invitation to disallow the seizure of his truck under Article II, Section 10, and conclude that, for today, Broell controls the warrantless seizure. See Elison, ¶ 54, n. 3. As we have noted, the seizure at issue in Broell was lawful regardless of exigent circumstances because `there was sufficient probable cause under the facts of this case to believe that illegal drugs were located in Broell's car.' Elison, ¶ 54, n. 3 (quoting Broell, 249 Mont. at 123, 814 P.2d at 47). ¶ 19 Similar to Broell, we will base our analysis on Officer Hoffman's probable cause to conduct the warrantless seizure solely on the information that Officer Hoffman received before towing and impounding the truck. Broell, 249 Mont. at 122, 814 P.2d at 47. We agree with the State that Officer Hoffman possessed sufficient facts before towing the truck, including the smell of burnt marijuana, Pierce's admission that someone had smoked marijuana in the truck, and the dispatch report that Pierce had earlier drug-related convictions, upon which to conclude that the contents of Pierce's truck offended against the law. Broell, 249 Mont. at 122, 814 P.2d at 47. ¶ 20 Pierce attempts to eliminate Officer Hoffman's reliance on Pierce's criminal record as justification to seize the truck because his only prior drug offense had been a 25 year-old misdemeanor possession of drugs conviction. Pierce points to Tackitt, ¶ 6, where we concluded that a seven-year-old misdemeanor drug citation proved insufficient to serve as corroboration for an anonymous tip to establish particularized suspicion to order a canine sniff. Tackitt, ¶ 41. We first note that Tackitt is not controlling given that the issue here involves a seizure of a truck based upon the owner's admission that an offense had taken place inside it and not whether the required particularized suspicion existed, based on stale information, to conduct a dog sniff. Tackitt, ¶ 41. Officer Hoffman relied on the information that the dispatcher provided at that time, which was that Pierce had several earlier drug-related offenses. ¶ 21 We agree with the State that even if Officer Hoffman improperly considered Pierce's earlier drug-related offenses in deciding to seize the truck, sufficient facts upon which Officer Hoffman could conclude that the contents of the truck offended the law remained. Officer Hoffman still smelled burnt marijuana and Pierce admitted that someone had smoked marijuana in the truck earlier that same day. ¶ 22 Pierce next argues that the odor of marijuana is insufficient to establish probable cause for the warrantless seizure of his truck. State v. Schoendaller (1978), 176 Mont. 376, 382, 578 P.2d 730, 734, followed by State v. Olson (1979), 180 Mont. 151, 155, 589 P.2d 663, 665. These cases do not control here. Schoendaller concerned the issue of probable cause to conduct a warrantless search based on the odor of marijuana alone. Olson concerned probable cause to obtain a search warrant again relying exclusively on the odor of marijuana. We agree with the State's assertion that throughout his argument, Pierce continually glosses over the fact that he admitted that a crime  marijuana smoking  had been committed in the truck, and that this fact cannot be ignored. Officer Hoffman used the odor in conjunction with Pierce's admission to establish probable cause to seize the truck. ¶ 23 We conclude that Officer Hoffman had probable cause to support the warrantless seizure of Pierce's truck.