Court Opinion

ID: 9659759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:54:12.099304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:11.404728
License: Public Domain

*55ZASTROW, Justice
(dissenting).
Although the factual statement in the majority could justify a reversal of the trial court’s decision, the testimony at the suppression hearing could have been, and apparently was, interpreted quite differently by the trial court. However, there were no findings of fact and conclusions of law entered with the trial court’s order suppressing the evidence seized upon the execution of the search warrant.
The procedure in this situation has been clearly stated in State v. Stumes, 1976, S.D., 241 N.W.2d 587:
“It is abundantly clear, however, that absent the necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law which make up a ‘decision,’ RCP 52(a); Bunnell v. Kindt, 1968, 83 S.D. 377, 159 N.W.2d 923, this court’s review is seriously hampered, if not made impossible, because of the inability of this court to determine the credibility of the witnesses which determination is within the purview of the trial court before whom the witnesses appeared.

“The total lack of findings of fact and conclusions of law in the present case causes us to remand this case for a determination of the factual issue upon the evidence previously adduced.” 241 N.W.2d at 591.
If this case is not to be remanded, the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to support the trial court’s decision. State v. Nelson, 1974, S.D., 220 N.W.2d 2; State v. Kiehn, 1972, 86 S.D. 549, 199 N.W.2d 594.
The trial court in its memorandum opinion expressly adopted as “accurate” the statement of facts set forth in the defendant’s memorandum brief. The facts adopted by the trial court indicate that the entire sequence of events which culminated in the discovery of the marijuana was set in motion by the motel manager’s deliberate and wilful interception of the defendant’s telephone communications. A close reading of the transcripts reveals that there were two telephone calls intercepted by Mr. Bunt. One was a local call to Thomas Pierson’s parents, which should have allayed Bunt’s suspicions about the parents’ residence.
The trial court’s “finding” that Bunt had deliberately and intentionally “listened in” on the telephone conversations, although supported by the testimony, was in fact based upon the state’s stipulation that the interception of the calls was deliberate. The stipulation occurred when Bunt repeatedly invoked the “5th Amendment” when questioned about the circumstances under which he “listened in” on the telephone conversations. As noted by the majority, exactly what Bunt did overhear is not entirely clear from the record, due in large part to his refusal to testify about the telephone conversations.
The question regarding the “policy” of the motel to clean the desk drawers was raised at the preliminary and suppression hearings. Bunt’s testimony at the preliminary hearing was that it was the duty of the “cleaning lady” to check the drawers. Following the testimony of the cleaning lady to the contrary, and evidence that the drawers were not routinely checked, Bunt then testified at the suppression hearing that the policy was that the brother was to check the drawers. Another “policy” of the motel was that the rooms of customers staying more than one night would not be cleaned unless there was a specific request by the customer. Here there was a request that the room not be cleaned. Although that request was honored on Sunday, it was not honored on Monday following Bunt’s conversation with Captain Oakes.
Bunt testified that Captain Oakes left “the impression” that Bunt or someone else would have to see an illegal substance before the police could act. Bunt then discussed the matter with his sister and brother-in-law, telling them of his suspicions and the inability of the police to act.
On Monday, Bunt, his sister and his brother waited in the motel office until the defendants left their room. At no time did Bunt follow the normal practice of contacting the room to inquire whether the occupants desired to have the room cleaned. *56Immediately after the defendants departed, Bunt’s sister and brother went to the room with the instruction: “There may be drugs too, look around.” Captain Oakes recalled that Bunt had indicated his instructions had been to “look for some pot.” The sister, who was not the regular cleaning lady, went immediately to the desk drawers. Upon discovering the plastic bags of marijuana, she and her brother went back to the motel office to advise Bunt of the discovery. The brother then returned to the defendants’ room and looked in additional drawers until the scale was found. The majority’s conclusion that the only purpose of the entry into the defendants’ room was to clean is not the only conclusion which could be reached from the testimony. There was no evidence of any actual cleaning of the room, even though the defendants did not return until 6:30 p. m.
Although certainly not controlling, the magistrate, in an affidavit, stated that in issuing the search warrant he had relied upon the information obtained from the intercepted telephone conversations and upon the assertion in the application that the interception had been “inadvertent.”
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision, it is difficult to find, as does the majority, that there is no evidence that Bunt and his employees were acting as government agents; that the police did not instruct or request Bunt to take such action; that the brother and sister were engaged only in cleaning operations; or that the intentional eavesdropping by Bunt was not exploited by the police officer.
The trial court was in a better position to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to interpret the disputed testimony. State v. Stumes, supra; State v. Starkey, 1976, S.D., 247 N.W.2d 493. For that reason, the case should be remanded to the trial court for proper findings of fact and conclusions of law. If the Stumes procedure is to be abandoned, the trial court’s decision does not appear to be erroneous and the suppression order should be affirmed.