No. 13154
TN THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F OTN
1975
STATE O M N A A ex re1
F OTN .,
RICHARD D. TOWNSEND,
Relator,
THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT O THE STATE OF
F
MONTANA, I n and f o r t h e County o f
R a v a l l i and t h e HONORABLE JACK L.
GREEN, p r e s i d i n g J u d g e ,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING:
For R e l a t o r :
M i l o d r a g o v i c h , Dale and Dye, Missoula , Montana
Michael J. Milodragovich a r g u e d , Missoula , Montana
F o r Respondents :
Douglas H a r k i n a r g u e d , Hamilton, Montana
Submitted: September 30, 1975
Decided :
DEC 1 3975
Filed: '!LL - 9/b
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e
Court .
R e l a t o r Richard D. Townsend i s charged by I n f o r m a t i o n
i n R a v a l l i County w i t h t h e o f f e n s e of c r i m i n a l s a l e of dangerous
d r u g s , a f e l o n y under s e c t i o n 54-132, R.C.M. 1947. The Informa-
t i o n r e s u l t s from t h e s e i z u r e of forty-two marijuana p l a n t s and
a s s o r t e d p a r a p h e n a l i a by county deputy s h e r i f f s d u r i n g a s e a r c h
March 31, 1975, of r e l a t o r ' s a p p a r e n t p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e . Prior
t o t h e s e a r c h , a s u p p o r t i v e w a r r a n t was i s s u e d by a l o c a l magis-
trate. The v a l i d i t y of t h a t warrant was c h a l l e n g e d by a motion t o
s u p p r e s s under s e c t i o n 95-1805, R.C.M. 1947. Hearing was h e l d
on May 23, 1975 i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and t h e motion t o s u p p r e s s
was denied. A s t h e d e n i a l of t h i s motion i s n o t an a p p e a l a b l e
o r d e r , r e l a t o r p e t i t i o n s t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y
c o n t r o l , s u p p r e s s i n g a l l evidence, w r i t t e n o r o r a l , which was ob-
t a i n e d from him i n connection w i t h t h i s s e a r c h .
I n determining t h e f a c t s upon which t h e m a g i s t r a t e r e l i e d
t o f i n d probable cause f o r t h e c o n t e s t e d w a r r a n t , we c o n s i d e r two
sources - I ) t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i t s e l f , and 2 ) c e r t a i n r e s p o n s e s t o
o r a l i n q u i r y of t h e o f f i c e r made a t t h e time of t h e submission of
the application.
Except f o r t h e s t a n d a r d d e s c r i p t i o n s of t h e i t e m s t o be
s e i z e d and t h e p l a c e t o be s e a r c h e d , t h e o n l y f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s
made i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n were:
"An informant has a d v i s e d s h e r i f f ' s Deputies t h a t he
has seen s e v e r a l marijuana p l a n t s growing i n s i d e t h e
house. A second informant a d v i s e d s h e r i f f ' s Deputies
t h a t he saw marijuana p l a n t s growing i n s i d e t h e house.
The second informant has had p e r s o n a l ex e r i e n c e w i t h
t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of growing marijuana. Pt
The quoced paragraph c o n s t i t u t e s t h e o n l y w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t of
f a c t s submitted t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e . A t t h e suppression hearing, it
was r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e m a g i s t r a t e propounded s e v e r a l o r a l q u e s t i o n s
co t h e a p p l y i n g o f f i c e r b e f o r e a u t h o r i z i n g t h e w a r r a n t . According
t o t h e o f f i c e r ' s t e s t i m o n y , t h e s e q u e s t i o n s produced t h i s a d d i -
t i o n a l information;
"Q. And a p p a r e n t l y i f I understand your testimony
c o r r e c t l y , t h o s e t h i n g s which you deemed t o be impor-
t a n t and which h u l d be brought t o t h e ~ u d g e ' sa t t e n -
t i o n were t h a t two informants a l l e g e d l y saw marihuana
i n Richard own send's house; t h a t one of them a l l e g e d l y
could i d e n t i f y marihuana; t h a t t h e f i r s t had i d e n t i f i e d
a c o r r e l a t i o n between what he saw and t h e photograph t h a t
you showed him and t h a t b o t h i n d i v i d u a l s were u p s t a n d i n g
citizens; is that correct?
"A. I t sounds c o r r e c t , yes s i r . I I
I t i s undisputed t h a t t h e r e was no c o u r t r e p o r t e r p r e s e n t d u r i n g
t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , no w r i t t e n n o t e s were made o r s u b s c r i b e d t o by
t h e a p p l i c a n t , and t h a t no o t h e r w r i t i n g was submitted t o t h e
m a g i s t r a t e i n s u p p o r t of t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t probable c a u s e e x i s t e d .
A t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g , i t was r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e f i r s t
informant had seen t h e marijuana p l a n t s about two months p r i o r t o
t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e w a r r a n t , and t h e second informant had seen t h e
p l a n t s about t h r e e weeks p r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e w a r r a n t . This
d i d n o t appear on t h e a f f i d a v i t , n o r was i t brought t o t h e a t t e n t i o n
ox the magistrate.
A d i s p o s i t i v e r u l i n g i n t h i s c a s e can be achieved through
t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of two r e l a t e d i s s u e s : 1 ) Whether t h e a f f i d a v i t
c o n t a i n e d f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t f o r a m a g i s t r a t e t o determine whether
probable c a u s e e x i s t e d , and 2) whether o r a l s t a t e m e n t s made t o
t h e m a g i s t r a t e a t t h e time of t h e submission of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n
may be used t o c u r e a d e f i c i e n t a f f i d a v i t .
The requirement t h a t t h e m a g i s t r a t e d e c i d e t h e e x i s t e n c e
of probable c a u s e on t h e b a s i s of f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w an
independent d e t e r m i n a t i o n , i s imposed by Montana law t o e n s u r e
t h a t some n e u t r a l and detached e v a l u a t i o n i s i n t e r p o s e d between
t h o s e who i n v e s t i g a t e crime and t h e o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n . This
p r i n c i p l e was d i s c u s s e d i n Johnson v. United S t a t e s , 333 U. S. 1 0 ,
68 S . C t . 367, 92 L ed 436, 440:
"The p o i n t of t h e Fourth Amendment, which o f t e n i s n o t
grasped by zealous o f f i c e r s , i s n o t t h a t i t d e n i e s law
enforcement t h e support of t h e u s u a l i n f e r e n c e s which
r e a s o n a b l e men draw from evidence. I t s p r o t e c t i o n
c o n s i s t s i n r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h o s e i n f e r e n c e s be drawn
by a n e u t r a l and detached m a g i s t r a t e i n s t e a d of b e i n g
judged by t h e o f f i c e r engaged i n t h e o f t e n c o m p e t i t i v e
e n t e r p r i s e of f e r r e t i n g o u t crime. 11
It cannot b e d i s p u t e d t h a t hearsay information may b e
considered t o e s t a b l i s h probable cause. S t a t e v. Paulson,
Mon t . , 538 P.2d 339, 32 St.Rep. 786; K e r v. C a l i f o r n i a ,
374 U.S. 23, 83 S.Ct. 1623, 10 L ed 2d 726,739; Draper v. United
S t a t e s , 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L ed 2d 327. But when
h e a r s a y information forms t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a f i n d i n g of probable
cause and t h e i s s u a n c e of a s e a r c h w a r r a n t , t h e two-pronged t e s t
s e t out i n Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12
L ed 2d 723, must be a p p l i e d and s a t i s f i e d :
"* ** t h e m a g i s t r a t e must b e informed of some of t h e
u n d e r l y i n g circumstances from which t h e informant con-
cluded t h a t t h e n a r c o t i c s were where he claimed they
were, and some of t h e underlying circumstances from
which t h e o f f i c e r concluded t h a t t h e informant. whose
i d e n t i t y need n o t be d i s c l o s e d , s e e Rugendorf united ;
.
S t a t e s , 376 U.S. 528, was ' c r e d i b l e ' o r h i s information
'reliable! "
See a l s o : S p i n e l l i v. United S t a t e s , 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584,
21 L ed 2d 637.
W f i n d t h e w a r r a n t i n t h i s c a s e t o be f a t a l l y d e f i c i e n t
e
i n several areas. F i r s t , t h e r e i s no s t a t e m e n t e x p l a i n i n g some
o f t h e underlying circumstances from which t h e informant concluded
t h a t t h e p l a n t s were i n t h e house o r t h a t r e l a t o r was i n some way
connected t o t h o s e p l a n t s . The mere f a c t t h a t a person i s on
premises where o f f i c e r s have reason t o b e l i e v e t h e r e a r e drugs does
n o t , by i t s e l f , j u s t i f y an a r r e s t o r s e a r c h of h i s person. State
ex r e l . Glantz v. D i s t r i c t Court, 154 Mont. 132, 139, 461 P.2d 193,
and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . S i m i l a r l y , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n c o n t a i n s no
f a c t t h a t would connect r e l a t o r t o t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y . Without
t h e showing of some c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y on t h e p a r t of Townsend, t h e r e
can be no probable cause. S t a t e e x r e l . G a r r i s v. Wilson, 162 Mont.
256, 260, 511 P.2d 15.
The second p a r t of t h e Aguilar - S p i n e l l i t e s t mandates
t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e of probable cause be e s t a b l i s h e d only through
a c r e d i b l e informant w i t h r e l i a b l e information. Again, t h e
m a g i s t r a t e must be informed of some u n d e r l y i n g circumstances which
demonstrate t h a t c r e d i b i l i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y . The a f f i d a v i t under
s c r u t i n y h e r e , c o n t a i n s s t a t e m e n t s which a r e a t b e s t merely c o n c l u s o r y ,
and t h e r e f o r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h probable cause.
Additionally, t h e a f f i d a v i t i s d e f i c i e n t i n t h a t it f a i l s
t o a v e r t h e time when t h e a f f i a n t r e c e i v e d t h e information. Research
has n o t r e v e a l e d a s i n g l e c a s e where t h e w a r r a n t was upheld w i t h o u t
a statement showing t h e time when t h e f a c t s o r e v e n t s r e l i e d upon
occurred. A a f f i d a v i t which omits a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e time of t h e
n
c r i m i n a l event cannot e s t a b l i s h probable cause. Rosencranz v.
United S t a t e s , 356 F.2d 310; Kohler v. United S t a t e s , 9 F.2d 23.
I n g e n e r a l agreement w i t h t h e s e a u t h o r i t i e s i s Poldo v.
United S t a t e s , 55 F.2d 866,868, wherein i t was s t a t e d '!Time of
t h e a f f i d a v i t ' s observations *** i s of t h e essence o f t h e a f f i d a v i t . "
The time f a c t o r i s regarded a s an important element o f probable
11
cause i n o r d e r t o prevent t h e i s s u a n c e of w a r r a n t s on loose,
vague, o r d o u b t f u l b a s e s of f a c t * 7v *. ' 1
Anno. 100 ALR2d 525,526.
I n Montana, t h e a f f i d a v i t must set f o r t h f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t
t o show t h a t a law i s b e i n g v i o l a t e d a t t h e time t h e w a r r a n t i s
issued. S t a t e e x r e l . Stange v. D i s t r i c t Court, 71 Mont. 125,
227 P. 576. I n S t a t e v. Gardner, 74 Mont. 377, 381, 240 P. 984,
t h i s Court r u l e d :
"Neither t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n n o r t h e s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s
t h a t t h e showing must be made by d i r e c t evidence o r
t h a t i t must b e s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y a c o n v i c t i o n .
The law i s s a t i s f i e d i f , by l e g a l evidence, d i r e c t
o r c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , i t i s made t o appear t h a t probable
cause e x i s t s t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s t a t u t e i s b e i n g
violated * * *.
"* * * i t cannot be s a i d t h a t because a man commits
one crime i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o presume t h a t he w i l l
commit a l i k e crime twenty-five days o r a month l a t e r . 11
(Emphasis added).
A s t h e a f f i d a v i t h e r e t o t a l l y l a c k s any r e f e r e n c e t o time,
e i t h e r d i r e c t o r c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , i t must b e h e l d void according
t o t h e aforementioned p r i n c i p l e s of law.
W now c o n s i d e r whether a d e f i c i e n t a f f i d a v i t may be
e
cured by responses t o o r a l i n q u i r y from a m a g i s t r a t e made a t t h e
time t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s submitted. Relevant t o t h i s l i n e of
i n q u i r y i s A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 11, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n which
provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :
'I* ** N w a r r a n t t o s e a r c h any p l a c e , o r s e i z e any
o
person o r t h i n g s h a l l i s s u e w i t h o u t d e s c r i b i n g t h e
p l a c e t o b e searched o r t h e person o r t h i n g t o be
s e i z e d , o r without probable cause, supported by o a t h
o r a f f i r m a t i o n reduced t o w r i t i n g . " (Emphasis added).
C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e requirement of a w r i t i n g a r e t h e s u p p o r t i n g
s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s , s e c t i o n 95-703, R.C.M. 1947, d e f i n i n g t h e
11
term s e a r c h warrant" and s e c t i o n 95-704, R.C.M. 1947, l i s t i n g
t h e grounds upon which a s e a r c h warrant may i s s u e .
Here, i t i s respondents1 c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e o f f i c e r ' s
sworn testimony t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e a t t h e time of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n
f o r t h e warrant may be used t o supplement an a p p l i c a t i o n d e f i c i e n t
on i t s f a c e . W f i n d t h i s conclusion t o b e unsupported by Montana
e
law. This q u e s t i o n was considered i n P e t i t i o n of Gray, 155 Mont. 510,
519, 520, 473 P.2d 532. There t h i s Court r u l e d t h a t t h e i s s u a n c e
of a s e a r c h w a r r a n t cannot be upheld on t h e b a s i s o f information
n o t contained i n t h e a f f i d a v i t , t h e a f f i d a v i t i t s e l f providing t h e
11
e x c l u s i v e support" f o r such i s s u a n c e . I n doing s o , Montana
joined t h o s e s t a t e s a d h e r i n g t o t h e s o - c a l l e d "four c o r n e r s " r u l e ,
s e t o u t i n Gray:
"* 9~ * t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of an a f f i d a v i t s u p p o r t i n g
a s e a r c h warrant must be found w i t h i n t h e f o u r c o m e r s
of t h e a f f i d a v i t i t s e l f and r e f e r e n c e may n o t be made
t o o r a l conversations * * *. W s e e no reason t o r e a c h
e
a c o n t r a r y r e s u l t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e p a r t i c u l a r l y , where
a s h e r e , t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s were unsworn, u n w r i t t e n , and
unsigned. I I
Cbntemporaneous oral declarations to a magistrate cannot be used
to bolster an insufficient affidavit in the attempt to establish
probable cause, unless such declarations are sworn, signed, re-
duced to writing, and made a part of the affidavit.
Relator's petition for writ of supervisory control is
granted. The aforementioned evidence is suppressed.
We Concur: