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