State v. Robey

No. 13793

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A
F F O T N

1978

THE STATE O MONTANA,
F

P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t ,

J I M M Y RICHARD ROBEY, DAVID J O H N
PETEREIAN, a n d JOAN SMITH TUTEN,

D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh Jud.icia1 D i s t r i c t ,
H o n o r a b l e James M. S a l a n s k y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

C o u n s e l o f Record:

For A p p e l l a n t s :

Daley a n d S h e r l o c k , K a l i s p e l l , Montana
P a t r i c k D. S h e r l o c k a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , &Iontana

For Respondent:

Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t e r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana
Brenda G i l m e r , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d ,
H e l e n a , Montana
P a t r i c k M. S p r i n q e r , County A t t o r n e y , K a l i s p e l l ,
Montana
R u s s e l l J o n e s , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d ,
K a l i s p e l l , Montana

Submitted: January 20, 1978

Decided: APR 2 4 1978
Filed :
ApP 3 I 'I???
Mr. Chief 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 .

Defendants Robey, Peterman and Tuten have f i l e d con-

s o l i d a t e d a p p e a l s from t h e i r c o n v i c t i o n s i n t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t , F l a t h e a d County, f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n c a r d games

w i t h i n p r e m i s e s n o t l i c e n s e d f o r gambling. Defendant Robey

a l s o a p p e a l s from c o n v i c t i o n s i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t , F l a t h e a d

County, f o r o p e r a t i n g a n u n l i c e n s e d p r e m i s e s f o r t h e p u r p o s e

of c o n d u c t i n g c a r d games and f o r p o s s e s s i o n of i l l e g a l

gambling p a r a p h e r n a l i a .

On t h e morning o f December 1, 1976, a n i n f o r m e r t e l e -

phoned t h e F l a t h e a d County s h e r i f f ' s d e p a r t m e n t and t o l d

Chief D e t e c t i v e R o b e r t Soderstrom h e s u s p e c t e d t h a t " t h e r e

would be a game t h a t e v e n i n g a t t h e S t a g e c o a c h I n n . " The

i n f o r m a n t s t a t e d d e f e n d a n t Jimmy Robey would h o s t t h e poker

game t h a t evening u p s t a i r s a t t h e S t a g e c o a c h I n n . The

i n f o r m a n t a l s o named v a r i o u s p e o p l e who would p a r t i c i p a t e i n

t h e game, a l l of whom t h e d e t e c t i v e s knew a s ','poker p l a y e r s ,

dealers, licensed establishment operators". Later t h a t day,

t h e same i n f o r m a n t t e l e p h o n e d D e t e c t i v e Soderstrom and

r e a f f i r m e d h i s e a r l i e r a s s e r t i o n t h a t a poker game was t o b e

h e l d a t t h e S t a g e c o a c h I n n i n Somers, Montana. In the

second t e l e p h o n e c a l l , t h e i n f o r m a n t s t a t e d t h e game would

s t a r t between 10:OO and 1 1 : O O p.m.

S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s second phone c a l l , Detec-

t i v e Soderstrom summoned t h r e e o t h e r d e t e c t i v e s t o t h e
s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e t o meet w i t h him and t h e F l a t h e a d County

attorney. The group met a t a b o u t 9:00 t o 1 0 : O O p.m. The

c o u n t y a t t o r n e y g a v e o n e of t h e d e t e c t i v e s , A l l a n H a r k i n s ,
$300 " f l a s h money" t o be u s e d t o a t t e m p t t o buy i n t o t h e

supposed i l l e g a l poker game.
 The d e t e c t i v e s , accompanied by o n e uniformed o f f i c e r ,

a r r i v e d a t t h e S t a g e c o a c h I n n p a r k i n g l o t s h o r t l y a f t e r mid-
n i g h t on December 2 , 1976. While t h e t h r e e d e t e c t i v e s

remained i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t , D e t e c t i v e H a r k i n s e n t e r e d t h e

S t a g e c o a c h I n n where h e assumed t h e r o l e of a h i g h r o l l i n g

Alaskan i n s e a r c h of some gambling t h r i l l s .

Although upon a r r i v a l a t t h e S t a g e c o a c h I n n t h e d e t e c -

t i v e s had s e e n a p p r o x i m a t e l y twenty c a r s i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t ,

D e t e c t i v e H a r k i n s o b s e r v e d o n l y f o u r p e o p l e i n t h e down-

s t a i r s bar a r e a . Detective Harkins t e s t i f i e d t o hearing t h e

sound of poker c h i p s and v o i c e s emanating from a n u p s t a i r s

room a s he p a s s e d a n unmarked s t a i r w a y c l o s e t o t h e e n t r a n c e

o f t h e I n n on h i s way t o t h e b a r . A f t e r approximately t e n

minutes, Harkins l e f t t h e b a r t o r e p o r t h i s f i n d i n g s t o

D e t e c t i v e Soderstrom. Soderstrom d i r e c t e d H a r k i n s t o r e t u r n

t o t h e I n n and t o a t t e m p t t o e n t e r t h e c a r d game.

Detective Harkins re-entered t h e I n n and t o l d t h e

barmaid t h a t he w a s a n Alaskan l o o k i n g f o r a poker game.

Defendant Robey, t h e owner of t h e S t a g e c o a c h I n n , e n t e r e d

t h e bar a r e a while Harkins w a s t e l l i n g h i s s t o r y t o t h e

barmaid, and t o l d t h e barmaid "we d o n ' t p l a y poker h e r e . "

H a r k i n s , who was i n t h e b a r from a p p r o x i m a t e l y 12:15 to

1:45 a.m., o b s e r v e d a man t w i c e c a r r y t r a y s of s i x d r i n k s up

t h e unmarked s t a i r w a y and r e t u r n w i t h empty g l a s s e s .

The d e t e c t i v e s i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t o b s e r v e d a man on two

o c c a s i o n s move c a r s from t h e f r o n t p a r k i n g l o t of t h e I n n t o

some l o c a t i o n b e h i n d t h e b a r . About a n hour and a h a l f

a f t e r t h e i r a r r i v a l a t t h e Stagecoach I n n p a r k i n g l o t , a t
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 : 4 5 a.m., t h e d e t e c t i v e s and t h e uniformed

o f f i c e r e n t e r e d t h e I n n , r a n up t h e s t a i r s , e n t e r e d a n

u p s t a i r s doorway and a r r e s t e d e l e v e n p e o p l e p l a y i n g poker i n
a n u p s t a i r s room. The d e t e c t i v e s s e i z e d v a r i o u s c h e c k s ,

c a s h and I . O . U . ' s , p l a y i n g c a r d s , poker c h i p s , punch b o a r d s ,

and a f e l t c o v e r e d poker t a b l e , a l l of which were found i n

t h e u p s t a i r s room of t h e I n n a t t h e t i m e of d e f e n d a n t s 1

arrest. The d e t e c t i v e s a l s o t o o k numerous p h o t o g r a p h s of

t h e gambling p a r a p h e r n a l i a t h e y found i n t h e room. The

d e t e c t i v e s had n e i t h e r a w a r r a n t f o r d e f e n d a n t s 1 a r r e s t n o r

a w a r r a n t t o s e a r c h t h e room.

The F l a t h e a d County a t t o r n e y f i l e d two i n f o r m a t i o n s i n

D i s t r i c t Court. I n c o u n t s o n e and two of one i n f o r m a t i o n ,

t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y c h a r g e d d e f e n d a n t Robey w i t h o p e r a t i n g

an unlicensed premises f o r t h e purpose of conducting c a r d

games and w i t h p o s s e s s i o n of i l l e g a l gambling p a r a p h e r n a l i a ,

b o t h v i o l a t i o n s o f F l a t h e a d County Gambling Commission

R e g u l a t i o n s , e n a c t e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e Montana Card Games A c t ,

s e c t i o n 62-701 e t s e q . , R.C.M. 1947. I n c o u n t t h r e e of t h e

second i n f o r m a t i o n e a c h o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s , i n c l u d i n g Robey,

was c h a r g e d w i t h p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n c a r d games w i t h i n p r e m i s e s

licensed t o dispense i n t o x i c a t i n g beverages but not licensed

f o r gambling a s r e q u i r e d by R e g u l a t i o n 3.10, Rules and

R e g u l a t i o n s of t h e F l a t h e a d County Gambling Commission.

Defendants s u b m i t t e d a motion t o d i s m i s s based on a

c l a i m t h a t t h e a c t s c h a r g e d took p l a c e w i t h i n a p r i v a t e

r e s i d e n c e , and w e r e t h e r e b y excluded by s e c t i o n 94-8-403,

R.C.M. 1947, from t h e c o v e r a g e of t h e Montana Card G a m e s Act

o r l o c a l gambling r e g u l a t i o n s . The c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion,

r u l i n g a s a m a t t e r of law t h a t Robeyls u p s t a i r s a p a r t m e n t
was n o t a p r i v a t e r e s i d e n c e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o d e n i e d

d e f e n d a n t s 1 motion t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e s e i z e d i n t h e c o u r s e

of t h e w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h of obey's a p a r t m e n t .
 obey w a s t r i e d b e f o r e a j u r y and c o n v i c t e d o f o p e r a t i n g

a n u n l i c e n s e d p r e m i s e s and p o s s e s s i o n of i l l e g a l gambling
paraphernalia. I n a s e p a r a t e nonjury t r i a l , defendants

Robey, Peterman and Tuten w e r e t r i e d and c o n v i c t e d o f p a r t i -

c i p a t i n g i n a c a r d game on a n u n l i c e n s e d p r e m i s e s .

Defendants r a i s e t h e f o l l o w i n g s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of e r r o r
on a p p e a l :
1. Did t h e d e t e c t i v e s have p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o e n t e r t h e

u p s t a i r s room of t h e Stagecoach I n n , a r r e s t d e f e n d a n t s , and

s e a r c h t h e room?

2. Were t h e d e t e c t i v e s r e q u i r e d by Montana s t a t u t o r y
law o r by t h e Montana o r United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n s t o

obtain an a r r e s t warrant p r i o r t o defendants' a r r e s t ?
3. W s t h e room i n which t h e poker game was conducted
a

a " p r i v a t e home" w i t h i n t h e meaning of s e c t i o n 94-8-403,

R.C.M. 1947?
4. Was d e f e n d a n t Robey s u b j e c t e d t o d o u b l e jeopardy by

b e i n g c o n v i c t e d of c o n d u c t i n g a poker game on u n l i c e n s e d

p r e m i s e s and by s u b s e q u e n t l y b e i n g c o n v i c t e d of p a r t i c i -

p a t i n g i n t h e same game?

5. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t commit numerous e r r o r s a t
t r i a l denying defendants a f a i r t r i a l ?

I n o u r view, t h e f i r s t i s s u e i s d i s p o s i t i v e of t h i s
appeal. United S t a t e s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirements govern

s e a r c h e s and a r r e s t s w i t h o u t w a r r a n t s and f u r n i s h t h e
answers t o t h i s i s s u e .
Here, t h e r e was n e i t h e r p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a r r e s t t h e s e

d e f e n d a n t s nor t o s e a r c h t h e a p a r t m e n t under u n i t e d S t a t e s
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l standards. These r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r d e t e r -

mining p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o s e a r c h o r a r r e s t w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t

a r e e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same. S p i n e l l i v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , ( 1 9 6 9 ) ,
393 U.S. 4 1 0 , 417, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L ed 2d 637. The

probable cause requirements f o r a w a r r a n t l e s s a r r e s t , i f n o t

more s t r i n g e n t , " * * * s u r e l y c a n n o t be l e s s s t r i n g e n t t h a n

where a n a r r e s t w a r r a n t i s o b t a i n e d * * * ." Wong Sun v .

United S t a t e s , ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 371 U.S. 471, 479-80, 83 S . C t . 407, 9

L ed 2d 4 4 1 . This Court has noted t h a t " * * * when h e a r s a y
i n f o r m a t i o n 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 p r o b a b l e

cause * * * t h e two-pronged t e s t s e t o u t i n Aguilar v.

Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 1 1 4 , 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1514, 1 2 L ed 2d

723, must be a p p l i e d and s a t i s f i e d * * * ." S t a t e ex r e l .

Townsend v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168 Mont. 357, 360-61,

I n i n v a l i d a t i n g a s e a r c h warrant i n S p i n e l l i v . United

S t a t e s , s u p r a , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t a p p l i e d t h e

two-pronged t e s t of A g u i l a r v . Texas, ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 378 U.S. 108,

84 S.Ct. 1509, 1 2 L ed 2d 723, and f i r s t c o n s i d e r e d t h e

w e i g h t of t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s t i p a p a r t from o t h e r a l l e g a t i o n s

of p r o b a b l e c a u s e :

" * * * Though t h e a f f i a n t swore t h a t h i s
c o n f i d a n t was ' r e l i a b l e , ' he o f f e r e d t h e
m a g i s t r a t e no r e a s o n i n s u p p o r t of t h i s
c o n c l u s i o n . * * *" S p i n e l l i , 393 U.S. a t 416.

I n t h i s c a s e D e t e c t i v e Soderstrom s t a t e d " I have g o t t e n
i n f o r m a t i o n [from t h e i n f o r m a n t ] t h a t was r e l i a b l e " and t h a t

he had known t h e i n f o r m a n t f o r a number of y e a r s . Detective

Soderstrom l a t e r t e s t i f i e d h e d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s

t i p a l o n e p r o v i d e d p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a r r e s t , and t h e S t a t e ,

i n a b r i e f t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court, s t a t e d t h a t t h e c i t i z e n
who g a v e t h e t i p s was " * * * n o t known t o be a r e l i a b l e

informant."

I t i s t h e second prong of t h e A g u i l a r t e s t , however,

which t h e a r r e s t most c o m p l e t e l y f a i l e d t o s a t i s f y .
 " * * * The t i p d o e s n o t c o n t a i n a s u f f i c i e n t
s t a t e m e n t of t h e u n d e r l y i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s from
which t h e i n f o r m e r concluded t h a t S p i n e l l i was
r u n n i n g a bookmaking o p e r a t i o n . W a r e not
e
t o l d how t h e F B I ' s s o u r c e r e c e i v e d h i s informa-
t i o n - - i t i s n o t a l l e g e d t h a t t h e informant
p e r s o n a l l y o b s e r v e d S p i n e l l i a t work o r t h a t
h e had e v e r p l a c e d a b e t w i t h him. Moreover,
i f t h e i n f o r m a n t came by t h e i n f o r m a t i o n
i n d i r e c t l y , h e d i d n o t e x p l a i n why h i s s o u r c e s
w e r e r e l i a b l e . * * * " S p i n e l l i , 393 U.S. a t 416.
Here, D e t e c t i v e Soderstrom t e s t i f i e d n e i t h e r d i d h e

h i m s e l f know how t h e i n f o r m a n t a c q u i r e d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n n o r

d i d t h e i n f o r m a n t t e l l him where he had a c q u i r e d h i s informa-

t i o n . Under s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e r e i s no way of d e t e r -

mining whether t h e i n f o r m a n t was s i m p l y r e p e a t i n g a c a s u a l

rumor o r whether h i s t i p was based on p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n s .

Nor d i d t h e i n f o r m a n t d e s c r i b e w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h e

a c c u s e d ' s a c t i v i t i e s o n t h e n i g h t of t h e a r r e s t s o a s t o

p e r m i t c o r r o b o r a t i o n of t h e d e t a i l s t o g i v e r i s e t o t h e

i n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e i n f o r m a n t had g a i n e d h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n a

r e l i a b l e way. I n Draper v . United S t a t e s , ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 358 U.S.

307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L ed 2d 327, t h e i n f o r m a n t r e p o r t e d t h e

d e f e n d a n t had gone t o Chicago t h e day b e f o r e by t r a i n and he

would r e t u r n t o Denver by t r a i n w i t h t h r e e ounces of h e r o i n

on one of two s p e c i f i e d mornings. The i n f o r m a n t i n Draper

a l s o d e s c r i b e d t h e c l o t h e s t h e d e f e n d a n t would b e wearing

and t h e bag he would b e c a r r y i n g , and s t a t e d t h a t he ha-

b i t u a l l y "walked r e a l f a s t " . When t h e p o l i c e i n v e s t i g a t i o n

corroborated t h e s e d e t a i l s they could reasonably conclude

t h e i n f o r m a n t had p e r s o n a l knowledge of d e f e n d a n t ' s h a b i t s

and c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y .

I n c o n t r a s t , t h e i n f o r m a n t i n t h i s c a s e s t a t e d merely

t h a t t h e r e would b e a poker game h o s t e d by Robey u p s t a i r s a t

t h e S t a g e c o a c h I n n s t a r t i n g between 10:OO and 1 1 : O O p.m. It

i s n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y s u r p r i s i n g t h a t Robey would b e a t t h e
I n n s i n c e he owned t h e I n n and l i v e d u p s t a i r s . The p o l i c e
a r r i v e d a t the Inn too l a t e t o corroborate t h e alleged

s t a r t i n g time. The o n l y i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e d i n t h e p o l i c e

i n v e s t i g a t i o n which was more i n d i c a t i v e of a poker game t h a n

m e r e l y a p r i v a t e p a r t y was D e t e c t i v e H a r k i n s ' s t a t e m e n t t h a t

he became s u s p i c i o u s when h e h e a r d what h e t h o u g h t t o be t h e

sound of poker c h i p s b e i n g s h u f f l e d u p s t a i r s as he e n t e r e d

t h e bar. Given t h e f a c t t h e door t o t h e u p s t a i r s a p a r t m e n t

where d e f e n d a n t s w e r e p l a y i n g c a r d s i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3 0 f e e t

from t h e bottom of t h e s t a i r s , t h i s e v i d e n c e l o s e s much of

its vitality. The w e i g h t of t h e poker c h i p s t e s t i m o n y under

t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i s h a r d l y enough t o g i v e r i s e t o p r o b a b l e

c a u s e t o e n t e r t h e a p a r t m e n t and a r r e s t d e f e n d a n t s .

The a c t i o n s of t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s i n d i c a t e t h e y

t h e m s e l v e s were h i g h l y d o u b t f u l t h e r e was p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o

e n t e r Robey's room and a r r e s t d e f e n d a n t s . The o f f i c e r s

q u i t e c o r r e c t l y d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h e r e was p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o

a r r e s t a s i s evidenced by D e t e c t i v e S o d e r s t r o m ' s t e s t i m o n y

t h a t he d i d n o t f e e l t h e i n f o r m a n t ' s t i p p r o v i d e d p r o b a b l e

cause t o a r r e s t . Nor d i d t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s by t h e i r

a c t i o n s a p p e a r t o b e l i e v e t h e r e was p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a r r e s t

when D e t e c t i v e H a r k i n s r e t u r n e d t o t h e p a r k i n g l o t , a f t e r

having been i n t h e b a r f o r a b o u t t e n m i n u t e s , and r e l a t e d t o

t h e d e t e c t i v e s t h a t t h e r e were few p e o p l e i n t h e d o w n s t a i r s

b a r a r e a , b u t he had h e a r d what he t h o u g h t t o be t h e sound

of poker c h i p s and had s e e n d r i n k s b e i n g c a r r i e d u p s t a i r s .

D e t e c t i v e Soderstrom, upon r e c e i v i n g t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n ,

merely i n s t r u c t e d D e t e c t i v e H a r k i n s t o r e t u r n t o t h e b a r and
a t t e m p t t o e n t e r a poker game. D e t e c t i v e h ark ins r e - e n t e r e d

t h e b a r , and he remained t h e r e i n e x c e s s of a n hour--without

r e p o r t i n g any a d d i t i o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n s t o t h e a r r e s t i n g
officers--in a n u n s u c c e s s f u l a t t e m p t t o j o i n t h e supposed

c a r d game.

The a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s t h e m s e l v e s , w h i l e s i t t i n g i n t h e

p a r k i n g l o t o b s e r v i n g t h e b a r , saw n o t h i n g t h a t would add t o

probable cause. The S t a t e emphasizes t h e o f f i c e r s ' o b s e r v a -

t i o n of a man who t w i c e moved c a r s from t h e f r o n t l o t t o t h e

r e a r of t h e b a r . T h i s , however, i s h a r d l y a n a c t i o n i n

which poker p l a y e r s r a t h e r t h a n p a r t y - g o e r s a r e more l i k e l y

t o engage. I t a p p e a r s from t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s

stormed t h e s t a i r s t o d e f e n d a n t Robey's a p a r t m e n t and a r -

r e s t e d d e f e n d a n t s a t 1:45 a.m., n o t b e c a u s e of a n accumula-

t i o n of f a c t o r s c r e a t i n g p r o b a b l e c a u s e , b u t merely b e c a u s e

t h e b a r would soon c l o s e and t h e d o o r s would t h e n be l o c k e d .

"* * * mere unconfirmed s u s p i c i o n i s n o t t h e c r i t e r i a upon

which p r o b a b l e c a u s e i s b a s e d . Something more was needed,

and even t h e a g e n t s r e c o g n i z e d t h i s . * * *" United S t a t e s v .

Jackson, (6th C i r . 1 9 7 6 ) , 533 F.2d 314, 319.

Nor d i d t h e f a c t t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s saw gambling

p a r a p h e r n a l i a and a c a r d game i n p r o g r e s s as t h e y e n t e r e d

d e f e n d a n t Robey's room p r o v i d e p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o j u s t i f y a n

o t h e r w i s e i l l e g a l a r r e s t , s e a r c h and s e i z u r e .

"Thus t h e Governiient i s o b l i g e d t o j u s t i f y
t h e a r r e s t by t h e s e a r c h and a t t h e same
t i m e t o j u s t i f y t h e s e a r c h by t h e a r r e s t .
T h i s w i l l n o t do. An o f f i c e r g a i n i n g ac-
c e s s t o p r i v a t e l i v i n g q u a r t e r s under c o l o r
of h i s o f f i c e and of t h e law which he p e r -
s o n i f i e s must t h e n have some v a l i d b a s i s
i n law f o r t h e i n t r u s i o n . Any o t h e r r u l e
would undermine ' t h e r i g h t of t h e p e o p l e t o
be s e c u r e i n t h e i r p e r s o n s , h o u s e s , p a p e r s ,
and e f f e c t s , ' and would o b l i t e r a t e one of
t h e most fundamental d i s t i n c t i o n s between
o u r form of government, where o f f i c e r s a r e
under t h e law, and t h e p o l i c e - s t a t e where
t h e y a r e t h e law." Johnson v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ,
( 1 9 4 8 ) , 333 U.S. 1 0 , 16-17, 68 S.Ct. 367,
92 L.ed. 436.
 T h i s C o u r t h a s p r e v i o u s l y a p p l i e d t h e same a n a l y s i s of

United S t a t e s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirements i n a case involving

an i l l e g a l entry without a search warrant i n t o a private

r e s i d e n c e where c o n t r a b a n d was d i s c o v e r e d .

"As a n e n t r y i s l a w f u l o r u n l a w f u l a t t h e
t i m e i t i s made, t h e s u b s e q u e n t s e a r c h h a s t h e
same l e g a l c h a r a c t e r a s t h e e n t r y which made i t
possible. (Citation omitted.) Thus w h e r e , a s
h e r e , t h e e n t r y i n t o d e f e n d a n t ' s r e s i d e n c e was
u n l a w f u l , t h e s e a r c h was l i k e w i s e u n l a w f u l a s it
was t h e p r o d u c t of t h e i l l e g a l e n t r y . And a
s e a r c h i s l a w f u l o r u n l a w f u l when i t s t a r t s and
d o e s n o t c h a n g e t h a t c h a r a c t e r from i t s s u c c e s s .
(Citation omitted.) Thus a s e a r c h u n l a w f u l i n
i t s i n c e p t i o n i s n o t v a l i d a t e d by what i t t u r n s
up. ( C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d . ) * * * " S t a t e v . Langan,
( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 558, 567, 445 P.2d 565.

Because t h e r e w a s no p r o b a b l e c a u s e e i t h e r t o s e a r c h

without a warrant o r t o arrest defendants without a warrant,

t h e a r r e s t s and s e i z u r e o f t h e e v i d e n c e i n c i d e n t t o t h e

a r r e s t s v i o l a t e d t h e F o u r t h Amendment, U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i -

tution. Accordingly, t h e evidence s e i z e d should have been

s u p p r e s s e d , and i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n a t t r i a l c o n s t i t u t e d

reversible error.

Absent t h e evidence i l l e g a l l y s e i z e d , t h e r e w a s i n s u f f i -

c i e n t evidence t o support t h e convictions. Thus a new t r i a l

c a n n o t b e g r a n t e d , a n d t h e c a s e must b e d i s m i s s e d . S t a t e v.

Langan, s u p r a .

I n view o f o u r holding, t h e remaining s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of

e r r o r need n o t b e d i s c u s s e d a s t h e i r d e t e r m i n a t i o n would n o t

a f f e c t the r e s u l t i n t h i s case.

R e v e r s e d and d i s m i s s e d .

2 - bd
Wk ?&@
Chief J u s t i c e

M r . J u s t i c e J o h n C , Sheehy
~ustices did not participate. i n t h i s

-10- case.
M r . John Conway H a r r i s o n d i s s e n t i n g :

I dissent. Here t h e informant gave D e t e c t i v e Soderstrom
'1
t h e names of kno-m poker p l a y e r s , d e a l e r s and l i c e n s e d e s t a b l i s h -

ment o p e r a t o r s " who were t o l a t e r p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e game a t t h e

Stagecoach I n n . T h i s added t o t h e f a c t t h a t on t h e same c a l l

t h e informant t o l d t h e p o l i c e t h e game was on f o r t h a t n i g h t ,

p l u s t h e a r r i v a l of t h e c a r s a t t h e i n n and t h e l a t e r sound of

poker c h i p s coming from t h e second f l o o r , a l l a r e i n m o p i n i o n
y

s u f f i c i e n t cause t o s u s t a i n t h e c o n v i c t i o n s .
I n Draper v . United S t a t e s (1959), 358 U.S. 307, 313,

79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L ed 2d 327, 332, t h e Court speaking t o whether

t h e r e was probable c a u s e n o t e d :

"* * * Probable cause e x i s t s where ' t h e f a c t s , and
circumstances w i t h i n [ t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s ' ]
knowledge and of which they had r e a s o n a b l e t r u s t -
worthy i n f o r m a t i o n [ a r e ] s u f f i c i e n t i n themselves
t o w a r r a n t a man of r e a s o n a b l e c a u t i o n i n t h e
b e l i e f t h a t ' an o f f e n s e has been o r i s being com-
mitted."

I would a f f i r m t h e c o n v i c t i o n s .