State v. Brough

No. 13434 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA H OR F F 1976 STATE O M N A A F OTN, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs - STEVEN ALLEN BROUGH , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court 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. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana John F. North argued, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, Helena, Montana Ronald W. Smith argued, County Attorney, Havre, Montana For Respondent : Weber, Bosch, Kuhr and Dugdale, Havre, Montana John Warner argued, Havre, Montana Submitted: October 12, 1976 Decided : NOQ 2 9 1976 Filed : FiQt 2 $4 1976 Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell 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 of Montana a p p e a l s 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 , H i l l County, t h e Hon. B. W. Thomas res siding, s u p p r e s s i n g a s e v i d e n c e m a r i j u a n a found i n t h e t r u n k of d e f e n d a n t ' s car. The c o u r t found t h e e v i d e n c e was s e i z e d i n a n i l l e g a l s e a r c h w i t h o u t a s e a r c h w a r r a n t , t h a t t h e S t a t e had f a i l e d t o prove de- f e n d a n t ' s c o n s e n t t o t h e s e a r c h was v o l u n t a r y , and t h a t t h e r e was no p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r a s e a r c h o f t h e c a r w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t . W e affirm. O f f i c e r G i l l i e s o f t h e Havre P o l i c e Department s t o p p e d a c a r f o r s p e e d i n g 4 5 m.p.h. i n a 25 m.p.h. speed zone a t 2:20 a.m. on J a n u a r y 31, 1976, a S a t u r d a y . Defendant Brough, t h e d r i v e r , a Havre r e s i d e n t and former h i g h s c h o o l c l a s s m a t e of Officer G i l l i e ~ ~ i r n m e d i a t e l y t o u t of t h e c a r . go Officer Gillies r e c o g n i z e d Brough and c a l l e d him by name. G i l l i e s shone h i s f l a s h - l i g h t i n s i d e t h e c a r and o b s e r v e d a C-B r a d i o and c a r s t e r e o on t h e f l o o r on t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e , a s t e r e o on t h e back s e a t , and a s c r e w d r i v e r , p l i e r s and wrench on t h e f l o o r i n t h e back. The C-B r a d i o matched t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f s e v e r a l C-B r a d i o s t h a t had been r e p o r t e d s t o l e n . Defendant Brough and t h e p a s s e n g e r i n h i s c a r , C r o s s , were t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y on s u s p i c i o n o f p o s s e s s i n g s t o l e n prop- erty. The c a r was impounded i n t h e p o l i c e g a r a g e . Defendant Brough and C r o s s s a t i n t h e p o l i c e c a r o u t s i d e t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n f o r 15-20 m i n u t e s a l o n e and handcuffed. Then t h e y were t a k e n i n t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n , r e l i e v e d of t h e i r personal possessions, and p l a c e d i n a d j o i n i n g c e l l s . Both were g i v e n t h e Miranda warning. During t h i s t i m e d e f e n d a n t Brough p l a c e d a t i n f o i l p a c k e t on t h e booking c o u n t e r , s a i d he d i d n o t know what it was, and i t s u b s e q u e n t l y w a s d e t e r m i n e d t o c o n t a i n no d a n g e r o u s d r u g o r anything i l l e g a l . Defendant Brough was n o t a l l o w e d t o p o s t bond on t h e t r a f f i c charge although t h e o f f i c e r s w e r e authorized t o receive bond. H i s a p p e a r a n c e was s e t f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g Monday. Officer G i l l k s t w i c e a s k e d d e f e n d a n t Brough t o c o n s e n t t o a s e a r c h o f h i s c a r and Brough w a s t o l d he would r e m a i n i n j a i l u n t i l h i s c a r was s e a r c h e d e i t h e r w i t h h i s c o n s e n t o r w i t h a s e a r c h w a r r a n t and t h a t h e would g e t o u t o f j a i l i f h e c o n s e n t e d t o t h e s e a r c h . Brough d i d n o t c o n s e n t a t t h i s t i m e . Brough w a s n o t a l l o w e d t o make a phone c a l l . Brough's f a t h e r came t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n a b o u t 4:00 a . m . and (1) was n o t a l l o w e d t o see h i s s o n , ( 2 ) was n o t i n f o r m e d o f t h e c h a r g e a g a i n s t h i s s o n , and ( 3 ) was n o t i n f o r m e d o f t h e amount o f b a i l . Brough was n o t i n f o r m e d o f h i s f a t h e r ' s v i s i t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t made a n e x p r e s s f i n d i n g t h a t Brough w a s h e l d incommunicado in jail. The n e x t morning d e f e n d a n t Brough was t a k e n t o a s m a l l c u b i c l e i n t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n by S g t . Stremcha and O f f i c e r Stinson f o r t h e purpose of g e t t i n g h i s consent t o a s e a r c h of his car. Brough was t o l d t h a t i f h e d i d n o t c o n s e n t , a s e a r c h w a r r a n t would be s e c u r e d anyway h i s c a r would b e s e a r c h e d , and t h a t B r o u g h ' s c o n s e n t would s a v e them t i m e and p a p e r work. Brough was r e l u c t a n t b u t f i n a l l y g a v e h i s c o n s e n t . M a r i j u a n a w a s found i n t h e t r u n k of t h e c a r . A f t e r c o n s e n t was g i v e n , Brough w a s a l l o w e d t o p o s t $100 bond on t h e t r a f f i c c h a r g e a n d was r e l e a s e d from j a i l . Later t h e r e c k l e s s d r i v i n g c h a r g e was r e d u c e d t o c a r e l e s s d r i v i n g and Brough p l e d g u i l t y t o i t . The i s s u e o n a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e m a r i j u a n a was p r o p e r l y suppressed a s i l l e g a l l y obtained. No s e a r c h w a r r a n t was e v e r obtained. The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h e c o n s e n t was v a l i d , o r t h a t l a c k i n g c o n s e n t , t h e r e was p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r t h e s e a r c h o f t h e car's trunk without a warrant. The f i r s t d e t e r m i n a t i o n i s w h e t h e r B r o u g h ' s c o n s e n t w a s v o l u n t a r i l y given. W e affirm the d i s t r i c t court's ruling that t h e c o n s e n t was c o e r c e d . The case o f S t a t e e x r e l . K o t w i c k i v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 166 Mont. 335, 532 P.2d 694 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , i n v o l v e d a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n , however, t h e f a c t s o f t h a t c a s e l a c k t h e c o e r c i v e t e n o r o f t h e p o l i c e procedure here. Kotwicki was a t r a n s i e n t p i c k e d up on t h e i n t e r s t a t e highway f o r s p e e d i n g , w a s o f f e r e d bond b u t c o u l d n o t p a y , was a l l o w e d t o u s e t h e phone, and was o n l y t o b e j a i l e d u n t i l h i s f r i e n d a r r i v e d w i t h t h e $15 bond money. H i s person was s e a r c h e d b e f o r e b e i n g p l a c e d i n a j a i l c e l l , and he spon- t a n e o u s l y a d m i t t e d a p l a s t i c bag found i n h i s s h o e c o n t a i n e d marijuana. When a s k e d i f h i s c a r c o u l d b e s e a r c h e d , h e s p o n t a n - e o u s l y a d m i t t e d it was f u l l o f m a r i j u a n a . H e acknowledged a w r i t t e n statement of h i s r i g h t t o r e f u s e consent t o t h e search. The p r o s e c u t i o n h a s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g by c l e a r p o s i - t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l f r e e l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y g a v e h i s u n e q u i v o c a l and s p e c i f i c c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h , u n c o n t a m i n a t e d by a n y d u r e s s o r c o e r c i o n , a c t u a l o r i m p l i e d . S t a t e v . LaFlamme, Mont . , 5 5 1 P.2d 1011, 33 St.Rep. 632, 634, and c a s e s cited therein. A s was s t a t e d i n S c h n e c k l o t h v . Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 36 L E d 2d 854, 863, 93 S . C t . 2041 ( 1 9 7 3 ) : " * * * t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r a c o n s e n t was i n f a c t 'voluntary' o r w a s t h e product of duress o r coercion, express o r implied, i s a question of f a c t t o b e d e t e r m i n e d from t h e t o t a l i t y o f a l l t h e circumstances. * * *" The e v i d e n c e a s r e c i t e d h e r e i n was s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t t h e finding of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of l a c k of voluntariness. The S t a t e n e x t c o n t e n d s t h a t e v e n i f t h e c o n s e n t was i n - v a l i d , t h e r e was p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o s e a r c h w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t . I n support o f i t s contention t h e S t a t e o f f e r s t h e follow- i n g s t a t e m e n t s of f a c t and i n f e r e n c e s : T h a t many C-B r a d i o s had been s t o l e n o u t o f v e h i c l e s i n t h e Havre a r e a ; t h a t t h e s e r a d i o s a r e more e a s i l y s t o l e n w i t h o u t d e t e c t i o n of t h e t h i e f i n t h e e a r l y morning b e f o r e s u n r i s e ; t h a t Brough was o u t d r i v i n g a t 2 : 2 0 a.m.; t h a t he was s p e e d i n g ; t h a t when O f f i c e r G i l l i e s t u r n e d on h i s r e d l i g h t s t o p u l l him o v e r , Brough c o n t i n u e d t o p a s s s e v e r a l c a r s ; t h a t when Brough f i n a l l y s t o p p e d , he immed- i a t e l y emerged from t h e a u t o ; t h a t O f f i c e r G i l l i e s o b s e r v e d a C-B r a d i o and c a r s t e r e o on t h e f l o o r of t h e c a r on t h e d r i v e r ' s s i d e i n a v e r t i c a l p o s i t i o n a s i f t h e y had been s u p p o r t e d by Brough's l e g ; t h a t i n t h e back s e a t , p a r t i a l l y c o v e r e d , was a s t e r e o t a p e p l a y e r o f t h e v a r i e t y n o t u s u a l l y found mounted i n a u t o m o b i l e s , and; a l s o i n t h e back s e a t were t o o l s of t h e t y p e commonly used i n b u r g l a r i e s . The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t from a l l t h e s e f a c t s a r e a s o n a b l e p r u d e n t man would i n f e r t h a t a t h e f t had been committed and t h a t e v i d e n c e of t h e t h e f t was t o be found i n Brough's v e h i c l e . W e affirm the d i s t r i c t court's finding t h a t the police s u s p i c i o n s a s t o t h e p o s s i b l e s t o l e n c h a r a c t e r of t h e C-B r a d i o and s t e r e o which t h e y c o u l d s e e i n d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r , a s w e l l a s t h e p o s s i b l e b u r g l a r t o o l s , do not provide probable cause f o r a search of t h e trunk of t h e vehicle. The f o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n a l f a c t s were b e f o r e t h e C o u r t . There was no h i g h speed c h a s e o r a t t e m p t t o f l e e . The o f f i c e r s had no r e p o r t s o f t h e f t s o c c u r r i n g t h a t n i g h t o r d e s c r i p t i o n s t y i n g d e f e n d a n t t o any c r i m e . The C-B r a d i o and c a r s t e r e o were mounted i n t h e c a r and a t t a c h e d w i t h s c r e w s . Brough c l a i m s t h e C-B r a d i o and c a r s t e r e o a r e h i s and t h e t a p e player i n t h e backseat belongs t o h i s brother. N one o e l s e had claimed them o r i d e n t i f i e d them a s b e i n g s t o l e n . The s c r e w d r i v e r , p l i e r s and wrench found on t h e floor in the back seat of Brough's automobile add nothing to the State's claims as they are as equally usable for noncriminal purposes as they are for burglar tools. In both State v. Spielmann, 163 Mont. 199, 516 P.2d 617, and Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 26 L Ed 2d 419, 90 S.Ct. 1975, the officers had information from eyewitnesses at the scene of the crime which was particular and reliable, wliich matched the defendants, their clothing and automobile when they were intercepted a short time after the crime. This case is also distinguished from Hooks v. State of Oklahoma, 394 F.Supp. 1262 (1975), involving the search of a car stopped for speeding at 4:00 a.m. after it attempted to elude the pursuit. The officers saw four new tires in the back seat still bearing price tags. When the occupants gave an in- credible account of them, the officers opened the trunk and found five more tires and a tool box later determined to be stolen from a service station that night. Since we affirm the district court's finding of lack of probable cause for the search, it is unnecessary to decide the question of whether the officers could proceed without a search warrant after impounding the car overnight at the police garage and admittedly having time to obtain a warrant under the recent decision of Texas v. White, 423 U.S. 67, 46 L Ed 2d 209, 96 S.Ct. 304 (1975). See White v. State, (Tex.Crim.App. (1974)) 521 S.W.2d 255, 257, the same case, rehearing denied, holding the exigencies required for a warrantless search of the car were not present 30 to 50 minutes after the car had been taken to the station and the defendant arrested. The order of the district court is affirmed. Justice - 6 - , / ~ f h - i e fJ u s t i c e on. & ~ L . ~~c ~ i n n d n ,i s t r i c t d D J u d g e , s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s . I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F No. 13434 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , vs. STEVEN ALLEN BROUGH, Defendant and Respondent. C U R K OF SUPREME COURT: S.'UUF; Q& MONTANA ORDER AMENDING OPINION The f o l l o w i n g amendment of t h e above named o p i n i o n d e c i d e d on November 2 9 , 1976, i s hereby o r d e r e d : Beginning w i t h t h e e i g h t h l i n e from t h e bottom of t h e 6 t h page p l e a s e amend t h e o p i n i o n t o r e a d as f o l l o w s : " g a r a g e and a d m i t t e d l y having t i m e t o o b t a i n a w a r r a n t i n l i g h t of t h e r e c e n t d e c i s i o n of Texas v . White, 423 U.S. 6 7 , 4 6 L Ed 2d 209, 9 6 S.Ct. 304 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , r e v e r s i n g White v . S t a t e , (Tex.Crim.App. (1974) ) 521 S.W.2d 255, 257, which had h e l d t h e e x i g e n c i e s r e q u i r e d f o r a w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h of t h e c a r were n o t p r e s e n t 30 t o 50 m i n u t e s a f t e r t h e c a r had been t a k e n t o t h e s t a t i o n and t h e d e f e n d a n t a r r e s t e d . " / D T D t h i s 7 t h da AE Chief J u s t i c e