Opinion ID: 883215
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: supervisory control

Text: The exercise of supervisory control by this Court is authorized by Article VII, Section 2(2) of the Montana Constitution and by Rule 17(a), M.R.App.P. We are reluctant to exercise supervisory control as it is an extraordinary remedy. State ex rel. O'Sullivan v. District Court (1946), 119 Mont. 429, 431-32, 175 P.2d 763, 764. Notwithstanding, supervisory control is appropriate where the district court is proceeding under a mistake of law, and in so doing is causing a gross injustice, State ex rel. Forsyth v. District Court (1985), 216 Mont. 480, 484, 701 P.2d 1346, 1348; State ex rel. Fitzgerald v. District Court (1985), 217 Mont. 106, 114, 703 P.2d 148, 153-54, and where, as here, requiring a defendant to stand trial would result in unnecessary expenditures of time and resources. State ex rel. Torres v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, (1994), ___, ___-___, 877 P.2d 1008, 1010-11, 51 St. Rep. 599, 600; State ex rel. Fletcher v. District Court (1993), 260 Mont. 410, 414, 859 P.2d 992, 994; State ex rel. First Bank System v. District Court (1989), 240 Mont. 77, 84, 782 P.2d 1260, 1264. Here, the State concedes that if the search warrants at issue are invalid and if the evidence resulting from the execution of those warrants is suppressed, then it will have no case against the defendants. No argument has been advanced that the evidence could have been seized under any exception to the written warrant requirement. Under such circumstances, because we conclude that the search warrants are void ab initio, it would be fundamentally unfair and prejudicial, not to mention a waste of time and the limited resources of the court and counsel, to require this case to proceed further. Accordingly, it is appropriate that we assume jurisdiction of this case and exercise original jurisdiction under a writ of supervisory control in order to forestall further needless and expensive litigation.