No. 12584
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
1974
STATE OF MONTANA,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs -
JERRY A . AMOR,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable B . W. Thomas, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant :
Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a ,
Montana
.
J . C W e i n g a r t n e r , Deputy A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d ,
Helena, Montana
P a u l C . Bunn, County A t t o r n e y , C h e s t e r , Montana
Donald Marble a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , C h e s t e r ,
Montana
F o r Respondent :
M o r r i s o n , E t t i e n and Barron, Havre, Montana
R o b e r t D. Morrison a r g u e d , Havre, Montana
Submitted: F e b r u a r y 28, 1974
Decided : APR 2 1974
Filed :
APR - 2 1974
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
The S t a t e o f Montana b r i n g s t h i s a p p e a l from a n o r d e r
of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f L i b e r t y County s u p p r e s s i n g c e r t a i n
e v i d e n c e t h e S t a t e s o u g h t t o i n t r o d u c e i n t h e t r i a l of d e f e n d a n t ,
J e r r y A. Amor, who i s c h a r g e d w i t h b u r g l a r y . The e v i d e n c e i n
q u e s t i o n i s a s c r a p of c a r d b o a r d upon which i s w r i t t e n a l i s t of
d r u g s and c o r r e s p o n d i n g amounts, which was s e i z e d from Amor's
a u t o m o b i l e by a member of t h e L i b e r t y County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e .
On March 1 3 , 1973, a t a b o u t 9:45 p.m., t h e L i b e r t y County
s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e was n o t i f i e d by employees o f t h e C h e s t e r P r o f e s -
s i o n a l C l i n i c t h a t t h e c l i n i c had j u s t been b u r g l a r i z e d . During
t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a t a b o u t 11:40 p.m., a t t e n t i o n was c e n t e r e d on
a l o n e a u t o m o b i l e parked i n a c h u r c h p a r k i n g l o t a s h o r t d i s t a n c e
from t h e c l i n i c . Looking t h r o u g h t h e windows, o f f i c e r s were a b l e
t o s e e t h e k e y s i n t h e i g n i t i o n , a b e e r c a n and what a p p e a r e d t o
b e a box of r i f l e ammunition on t h e s e a t . A l i c e n s e p l a t e check
r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e c a r was r e g i s t e r e d t o d e f e n d a n t Amor, who, t h e
o f f i c e r s l e a r n e d , matched t h e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e b u r g l a r
g i v e n by t h e c l i n i c employees and who was t h e n on p a r o l e from a
c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e f o r r a p e . The o f f i c e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y
were aware t h a t p a r o l e e s a r e n o t p e r m i t t e d t o p o s s e s s weapons.
A s e a r c h was n e x t made of t h e c h u r c h and no one was
found i n s i d e . The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t a m e e t i n g had been h e l d
a t t h e church e a r l i e r t h a t evening. The o f f i c e r s t h e n s e a r c h e d
t h e Arnor c a r and d i s c o v e r e d t h e d r u g l i s t i n t h e g l o v e compartment.
The d r u g l i s t was r e t u r n e d and t h e c a r d r i v e n t o t h e u n d e r s h e r i f f ' s
p r i v a t e g a r a g e , where i t was k e p t o v e r n i g h t . The n e x t morning t h e
car w a s t a k e n t o t h e C h e s t e r M o t o r ' s Garage, and w h i l e t h e r e a n
o f f i c e r e n t e r e d t h e a u t o m o b i l e and t o o k t h e d r u g l i s t from t h e c a r ' s
g l o v e compartment.
I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t n e i t h e r t h e March 1 3 t h o r 1 4 t h s e a r c h e s
o f Arnor's a u t o m o b i l e were made p u r s u a n t t o a w a r r a n t , o r c o n s e n t
g i v e n by Amor, o r w e r e i n c i d e n t t o an a r r e s t o f Amor.
The s o l e i s s u e a s s i g n e d by t h e S t a t e on t h i s a p p e a l i s
whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s
motion t o s u p p r e s s t h e e v i d e n c e .
The s t a t e c o n t e n d s on t h i s a p p e a l t h a t t h e "mobile premises--
p r o b a b l e c a u s e " w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h e x c e p t i o n a p p l i e d by t h i s C o u r t
i n S t a t e v . Speilmann and C h r i s t e n s e n , - .
Mont , 516 P.2d 617,
30 St.Rep. 1036, i s a p p l i c a b l e i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . In those cases,
and i n t h e v a r i o u s f e d e r a l c a s e s c i t e d and r e l i e d upon t h e r e i n , t h e
w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h e x c e p t i o n was p r e d i c a t e d upon t h e e x i s t e n c e of
probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances. In the instant
c a s e t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e ammunition box i n t h e a u t o m o b i l e and t h e
knowledge t h a t Amor, t h e r e g i s t e r e d owner, was a p a r o l e e who match-
ed t h e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e b u r g l a r were f a c t s c o n t r i b u t o r y
t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of probable cause, n o t exigent circumstances. In
t h e above c i t e d ca.ses e x i g e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s e x i s t e d b e c a u s e t h e r e
was a f l e e t i n g o p p o r t u n i t y t o s e a r c h an o c c u p i e d a u t o m o b i l e which
had been s t o p p e d w h i l e t r a v e l i n g on a highway. I n no c a s e may
t h e e x i s t e n c e o f e x i g e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s b e p r e d i c a t e d upon t h e mere
f a c t t h a t t h e o b j e c t of t h e s e a r c h was a n a u t o m o b i l e . In the case
o f Coolidge v . New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L Ed
2d 564, 580, 583, t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n s t a t e d :
"The word ' a u t o m o b i l e ' i s n o t a t a l i s m a n i n
whose p r e s e n c e t h e F o u r t h Amendment f a d e s away
and d i s a p p e a r s . And s u r e l y t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n
t h i s c a s e t o i n v o k e t h e meaning and p u r p o s e o f
t h e r u l e of C a r r o l l v . United S t a t e s (267 U.S.
1 3 2 , 45 S.Ct. 280)--no a l e r t e d c r i m i n a l b e n t on
f l i g h t , no f l e e t i n g o p p o r t u n i t y on an open high-
way a f t e r a h a z a r d o u s c h a s e , no c o n t r a b a n d o r
s t o l e n goods o r weapons, no c o n f e d e r a t e s w a i t i n g
t o move t h e e v i d e n c e , n o t even t h e i n c o n v e n i e n c e
of a s p e c i a l p o l i c e d e t a i l t o g u a r d t h e immobil-
i z e d a u t o m o b i l e . I n s h o r t , by no p o s s i b l e s t r e t c h
of t h e l e g a l i m a g i n a t i o n can t h i s be made i n t o a
c a s e where ' i t was n o t p r a c t i c a b l e t o s e c u r e a
w a r r a n t , ' C a r r o l l , s u p r a , a t 1 5 3 , 69 L Ed a t 551,
39 ALR 790, and the 'automobile exception,'
despite its label, is simply irrelevant.
Likewise in the instant case, we find that it was both
practicable and mandatory that the officers obtain a valid warrant
before conducting a search of Amor's parked, unoccupied automo-
bile.
The State also contends that the drug list seized from
the glove compartment of Amor's automobile comes under the so-
called "plain view" exception. This contention erroneously pre-
supposes that the officers had justification for their intrusion
into Amor's automobile and its glove compartment when they came
upon the drug list. Quoting again from the majority opinion in
Coolidge :
"What the 'plain view' cases have in common is
that the police officer in each of them had a prior
justification for an intrusion in the course of
which he came inadvertently across a piece of evi-
dence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves
to supplement the prior justification--whether it be
a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search
incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate
reason for being present unconnected with a search
directed against the accused--and permits the warrant-
less seizure. * * * "
Finally, the State contends that Amor's automobile was
searched as part of a "standard inventory procedure" of an impound-
ed abandoned vehicle. The record shows that the officers were
aware that the automobile belonged to Arnor, who was their prime
suspect in a burglary. Sheriff Terry Stoppa testified:
"Q. I am interested in this policy of handling
abandoned automobiles. Did you take this auto-
mobile in your possession because you thought it
was abandoned? A. No. Not primarily.
"Q. You didn't think it was abandoned, did you?
A. We weren't sure. We thought--
"Q. It had the keys in it, didn't it? A. Yes.
"Q. And did you make, try to determine how long it
has been parked there? A. Yes.
And what information did dig up in that
r e g a r d ? A. I t had been parked t h e r e f o r some t i m e
b e f o r e we had a r r i v e d t h e r e t o check it o u t .
"Q. But t h a t was i n terms of h o u r s , n o t d a y s o r
months o r weeks, i s n ' t t h a t r i g h t ? A. Yes.
W e f i n d , a s d i d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , t h a t t h e abandoned
v e h i c l e c o n t e n t i o n i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e law en-
f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s and i s s u p p o r t e d by none o f t h e f a c t s i n t h e
record.
The o r d e r o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r
Chief J u s t i c e