No. 14224
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTAN
1978
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
-vs-
ELWOOD WILLIAM RYAN,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
District,
Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana
James D. Walen, argued, Deputy County Attorney,
Billings, Montana
For Respondent:
Berger, Anderson, Sinclair and Murphy, Billings,
Montana
Chris J. Nelson argued, Billings, Montana
Submitted: December 11, 1978
Decided: JAN 16 ;$73
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 Court.
his a p p e a l i s brought by t h e S t a t e of Montana from an
o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
s u p p r e s s i n g c e r t a i n s t a t e m e n t s made by d e f e n d a n t Elwood Ryan
d u r i n g t h e e x e c u t i o n of a s e a r c h w a r r a n t a t h i s home. The
a p p e a l i s a u t h o r i z e d by s e c t i o n 95-2403(2) ( f ) , R.C.M. 1947,
which p e r m i t s t h e S t a t e t o a p p e a l from any c o u r t o r d e r i n a
c r i m i n a l c a s e which r e s u l t s i n t h e s u p p r e s s i o n of a confes-
s i o n o r admission.
A t approximately 1 0 : O O a.m. on September 22, 1977, two
d e t e c t i v e s from t h e Yellowstone County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e and
two s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e r s from G a r f i e l d County a r r i v e d a t
d e f e n d a n t ' s home i n J o r d a n , Montana. The d e t e c t i v e s were i n
p l a i n c l o t h e s and drove a n unmarked c a r w h i l e t h e G a r f i e l d
County o f f i c e r s were i n uniform and drove a s h e r i f f ' s v e h i c l e .
When t h e o f f i c e r s a r r i v e d , d e f e n d a n t and h i s s t e p s o n were
o u t s i d e t h e house working on a v e h i c l e parked i n t h e yard.
Detective E l l i s presented defendant with a search warrant
a u t h o r i z i n g t h e o f f i c e r s t o s e a r c h h i s home f o r v a r i o u s
f i r e a r m s which d e f e n d a n t had e a r l i e r r e p o r t e d s t o l e n and f o r
which he had r e c e i v e d i n s u r a n c e compensation. Upon r e a d i n g
a copy of t h e w a r r a n t d e f e n d a n t r e p o r t e d l y t o l d t h e o f f i c e r s ,
"Well, you guys have g o t me anyway. I w i l l j u s t show you
where t h e guns a r e a t . "
~t t h e time t h e s t a t e m e n t was made d e f e n d a n t had n o t
been g i v e n a Miranda warning. I n s i d e t h e house d e f e n d a n t
r e q u e s t e d t h e o f f i c e r s t o w a i t w h i l e h i s w i f e g o t o u t of bed
and d r e s s e d . When s h e had done s o , he e s c o r t e d them i n t o
h i s bedroom where he p o i n t e d t o t h e c l o s e t s a y i n g " t h e guns
a r e i n there." A t t h i s p o i n t t h e o f f i c e r s had been a t
d e f e n d a n t ' s home approximately t e n minutes and s t i l l had n o t
informed d e f e n d a n t of h i s r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t o r t o c o n s u l t
w i t h an a t t o r n e y . When t h e o f f i c e r s began checking t h e
s e r i a l numbers on t h e v a r i o u s weapons t h e y found i n t h e
c l o s e t , d e f e n d a n t t o l d them t h a t t h e r e was no s e n s e i n
w r i t i n g them down because he had a l t e r e d them a f t e r t u r n i n g
i n the burglary report. I t was o n l y a f t e r t h i s s t a t e m e n t by
d e f e n d a n t t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s placed d e f e n d a n t under arrest
and informed him of h i s r i g h t s .
A t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g h e l d February 17, 1978, t h e
D i s t r i c t Court h e l d t h a t a l l t h e s t a t e m e n t s made by d e f e n d a n t
p r i o r t o h i s a r r e s t were i n a d m i s s i b l e f o r f a i l u r e t o g i v e
t h e Miranda warning.
The s o l e i s s u e on t h i s a p p e a l i s whether t h e s t a t e m e n t s
made by d e f e n d a n t p r i o r t o h i s a r r e s t were t h e p r o d u c t of
c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e i n a d m i s s i b l e f o r l a c k
of a Miranda warning,
The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t s before
a r r e s t were completely v o l u n t a r y and t h a t u n t i l t h e t i m e of
h i s a r r e s t , d e f e n d a n t had n o t been d e p r i v e d of h i s freedom
i n any s i g n i f i c a n t way. The S t a t e f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e
o f f i c e r s had n o t i n i t i a t e d any s o r t of i n t e r r o g a t i o n o r
focused t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n on d e f e n d a n t . Under t h e s e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , it c o n t e n d s , t h e Miranda requirement i s n o t
applicable.
Defendant a r g u e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s s u p p r e s s i o n o r d e r
should be a f f i r m e d because t h e p r e s e n c e of f o u r armed
o f f i c e r s w i t h a s e a r c h w a r r a n t d e p r i v e d him of h i s freedom
i n a s i g n i f i c a n t way and t h a t he should have been informed
of h i s r i g h t s t o remain s i l e n t p r i o r t o making any s t a t e -
ments.
I n Escobedo v. I l l i n o i s ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 378 U.S. 478, 490-91,
1 2 L Ed 2d 977, 986, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 1765, t h e United S t a t e s
Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t where t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a c r i m e
h a s begun t o f o c u s o n a p a r t i c u l a r s u s p e c t , t h e s u s p e c t i s
i n custody, t h e p o l i c e i n t e r r o g a t e t h e suspect thereby
e l i c i t i n g i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s , t h e s u s p e c t h a s re-
q u e s t e d and been d e n i e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n s u l t w i t h c o u n s e l ,
and t h e p o l i c e have n o t e f f e c t i v e l y warned t h e s u s p e c t of
h i s r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t , t h e s u s p e c t h a s t h e n been d e n i e d
h i s S i x t h Amendment r i g h t t o " t h e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l " and
t h e r e f o r e "no s t a t e m e n t e l i c i t e d by t h e p o l i c e d u r i n g t h e
i n t e r r o g a t i o n may be used a g a i n s t him a t a c r i m i n a l t r i a l . "
T h i s r u l e was developed f u r t h e r i n Miranda v . Arizona
( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U.S. 436, 478-79, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L Ed
2d 694, 726, t o r e q u i r e t h a t when a n i n d i v i d u a l i s " t a k e n
i n t o c u s t o d y o r o t h e r w i s e d e p r i v e d of h i s freedom by t h e
a u t h o r i t i e s i n any s i g n i f i c a n t way and i s s u b j e c t e d t o
q u e s t i o n i n g , " t h e a u t h o r i t i e s must employ p r o c e d u r a l s a f e -
g u a r d s t o " n o t i f y t h e p e r s o n of h i s r i g h t of s i l e n c e and t o
a s s u r e t h a t t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e r i g h t w i l l be s c r u p u l o u s l y
honored ... 11 11
... [ U l n l e s s and u n t i l s u c h w a r n i n g s and
w a i v e r a r e d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n a t t r i a l , no
e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d a s a r e s u l t of i n t e r r o g a t i o n c a n be used
a g a i n s t him." 384 U.S. a t 479, 86 S.Ct. a t 1630, 16 L Ed 2d
a t 726.
The Escobedo and Miranda h o l d i n g s b o t h a p p l i e d t o
i n t e r r o g a t i o n s which w e r e conducted a f t e r t h e s u s p e c t had
been t a k e n t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n . However, i n 1969, t h e
Supreme C o u r t a p p l i e d t h e Miranda r u l e t o a n i n t e r r o g a t i o n
conducted a t a b o a r d i n g house i n t h e room of a s u s p e c t .
Orozco v . Texas ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 394 U . S . 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L Ed
2d 311. I n Orozco f o u r o f f i c e r s e n t e r e d t h e s u s p e c t ' s room
a t 4:00 a . m . and q u e s t i o n e d him c o n c e r n i n g a s h o o t i n g ,
w i t h o u t a r r e s t i n g him o r i n f o r m i n g him of h i s r i g h t s .
During t h e q u e s t i o n i n g , t h e s u s p e c t a d m i t t e d t h a t he had
been a t t h e r e s t a u r a n t where t h e s h o o t i n g o c c u r r e d and
r e v e a l e d t h e l o c a t i o n o f h i s p i s t o l which was l a t e r shown t o
b e t h e one used i n t h e s h o o t i n g . The Supreme C o u r t d i s -
missed t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s argument t h a t Miranda d i d n o t a p p l y
t o t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e made w h i l e t h e d e f e n -
d a n t w a s o n h i s own bed and i n f a m i l i a r s u r r o u n d i n g s .
I n s t e a d , t h e C o u r t emphasized t h e words from Miranda which
d e c l a r e t h a t t h e w a r n i n g s are r e q u i r e d when t h e p e r s o n b e i n g
q u e s t i o n e d i s " i n c u s t o d y a t t h e s t a t i o n - o t h e r w i s e de-
or
p r i v e d - -s freedom of a c t i o n -
of h i - in w significant w ~ . "
394 U.S. a t 327, 89 S.Ct. a t 1097, 22 L Ed 2d a t 315.
(Emphasis i n o r i g i n a l . )
I n t h e present case defendant argues t h a t t h e r a t i o n a l e
of Orozco a p p l i e s b e c a u s e f o u r o f f i c e r s descended upon h i s
p r e m i s e s a t once and w h i l e n o t t e c h n i c a l l y p l a c i n g him under
a r r e s t , d e p r i v e d him of h i s freedom of a c t i o n i n a s i g n i f i -
c a n t way. The S t a t e f o c u s e s on t h e t i m e , p l a c e , and circum-
s t a n c e s of b o t h t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h e s e a r c h and t h e making
of t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s . I n p a r t i c u l a r it p o i n t s
o u t t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s a r r i v e d a t d e f e n d a n t ' s home a t 10:OO
a.m., t h a t d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t incommunicado and was i n
t h e p r e s e n c e and company of h i s w i f e and s t e p s o n , and t h a t
t h e o f f i c e r s d i d n o t a c t u a l l y i n t e r r o g a t e defendant about an
a l l e g e d c r i m e b u t made t h e i r p u r p o s e known by s e r v i n g a
s e a r c h w a r r a n t on him.
Of p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e t o t h i s s e t of f a c t s i s t h e
l a c k of q u e s t i o n i n g by t h e o f f i c e r s . I n B r e w e r v. W i l l i a m s
( 1 9 7 7 ) , 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L Ed 2d 424, t h e
Supreme C o u r t h e l d i n a d m i s s i b l e t h e s t a t e m e n t s of a s u s p e c t
who g a v e i n c r i m i n a t i n g e v i d e n c e even a f t e r he had been
informed of h i s r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t b e c a u s e , a f t e r h i s
lawyer had r e f u s e d t o p e r m i t i n t e r r o g a t i o n , h e was q u e s t i o n e d
i n t h e lawyer's absence. I n B r e w e r , t h e defendant, while
r i d i n g a c r o s s Iowa w i t h two d e t e c t i v e s , was q u e s t i o n e d once
a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e t r i p . Sometime l a t e r i n t h e journey
he made t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s . 430 U.S. a t 392-93,
97 S.Ct. a t 1236-37, 51 L Ed 2d a t 432-33. Having once
a s s e r t e d h i s r i g h t t o s i l e n c e i n t h e a b s e n c e of h i s l a w y e r ,
t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d n o t a g a i n be q u e s t i o n e d a b s e n t a s t r o n g
showing of w a i v e r . 430 U.S. a t 404-06, 97 S.Ct. a t 1242-43,
51 L Ed 2d a t 439-41. Thus, where q u e s t i o n i n g t a k e s p l a c e
i n a c u s t o d i a l s e t t i n g t h e d i c t a t e s o f Miranda must be
c a r e f u l l y followed.
I n t h e same t e r m a s t h e Brewer d e c i s i o n , however, t h e
Supreme C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e c a s e of Oregon v . Mathiason
( 1 9 7 7 ) , 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L Ed 2d 714. In
Mathiason it h e l d t h a t a p a r o l e e who v o l u n t a r i l y came t o a
p o l i c e s t a t i o n was n o t s u b j e c t e d t o c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n
when h e was q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t a c r i m e b e c a u s e h e had been
t o l d t h a t he was n o t under a r r e s t when t h e q u e s t i o n i n g began
and was f r e e t o l e a v e a h a l f hour l a t e r when t h e i n t e r v i e w
ended. 429 U.S. a t 495, 97 S.Ct. a t 714, 50 L Ed 2d a t 719.
The C o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t a n o n c u s t o d i a l s i t u a t i o n i s n o t
" c o n v e r t e d i n t o o n e i n which Miranda a p p l i e s " s i m p l y b e c a u s e
t h e q u e s t i o n i n g t a k e s p l a c e i n a " c o e r c i v e environment":
"Any i n t e r v i e w of o n e s u s p e c t e d of a c r i m e
by a p o l i c e o f f i c e r w i l l have c o e r c i v e a s -
p e c t s t o i t , s i m p l y by v i r t u e of t h e f a c t
t h a t t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r i s p a r t of a law en-
f o r c e m e n t s y s t e m which may u l t i m a t e l y c a u s e
t h e s u s p e c t t o be charged w i t h a crime. But
police o f f i c e r s a r e not required t o administer
Miranda warnings t o everyone whom t h e y ques-
t i o n . Nor i s t h e requirement of warnings t o
be imposed simply because t h e q u e s t i o n i n g t a k e s
p l a c e i n t h e s t a t i o n house, o r because t h e
q u e s t i o n e d person i s one whom t h e p o l i c e sus-
p e c t . Miranda warnings a r e r e q u i r e d o n l y
where t h e r e h a s been such a r e s t r i c t i o n on a
p e r s o n ' s freedom a s t o r e n d e r him ' i n c u s t o d y . '
I t was t h a t s o r t of c o e r c i v e environment t o
which Miranda by i t s terms was made a p p l i c a b l e ,
and t o which i t i s l i m i t e d . " 4 2 9 U.S. a t 495,
97 S.Ct. a t 7 1 4 , 50 L Ed 2d a t 719.
Thus, Miranda a p p l i e s t o a q u e s t i o n i n g which t a k e s
p l a c e i n a c o e r c i v e environment i n which t h e s u s p e c t ' s
freedom of a c t i o n h a s been s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e s t r i c t e d . From
t h e f a c t s of t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t h i s
freedom had been s o r e s t r i c t e d by t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e o f f i -
cers. However, t h e o t h e r c r u c i a l element of t h e Escobedo,
Miranda, Orozco, and Brewer c a s e s i s m i s s i n g h e r e - - t h a t is,
t h e q u e s t i o n i n g by t h e o f f i c e r s . A s was p o i n t e d o u t i n
Miranda, a c o n f e s s i o n which i s t r u l y v o l u n t a r y i s n o t f o r e -
c l o s e d from evidence because made b e f o r e t h e person confes-
s i n g h a s been warned of h i s r i g h t s :
"Any s t a t e m e n t g i v e n f r e e l y and v o l u n t a r i l y
w i t h o u t any compelling i n f l u e n c e s i s , of
c o u r s e , a d m i s s i b l e i n evidence. The funda-
mental import of t h e p r i v i l e g e w h i l e an
i n d i v i d u a l i s i n custody i s n o t whether he
i s allowed t o t a l k t o t h e p o l i c e w i t h o u t t h e
b e n e f i t of warnings and c o u n s e l , b u t whether
he can be i n t e r r o g a t e d . There i s no r e q u i r e -
ment t h a t p o l i c e s t o p a person who e n t e r s a
p o l i c e s t a t i o n and s t a t e s t h a t he wishes t o
c o n f e s s t o a crime, o r a person who c a l l s t h e
p o l i c e t o o f f e r a c o n f e s s i o n o r any o t h e r
s t a t e m e n t he d e s i r e s t o make. Volunteered
s t a t e m e n t s of any kind a r e n o t b a r r e d by t h e
F i f t h Amendment and t h e i r a d m i s s i b i l i t y i s n o t
a f f e c t e d by o u r h o l d i n g today." 384 U.S. a t
478, 86 S.Ct. a t 1630, 1 6 L Ed 2d a t 726.
A s a p p l i e d t o t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , t h e h o l d i n g s of
Escobedo, Miranda, Orozco, and Brewer do n o t r e q u i r e t h a t
t h e s t a t e m e n t s of d e f e n d a n t be excluded from t h e prosecu-
t i o n ' s evidence. Defendant was n o t q u e s t i o n e d . H e simply
d e c i d e d t o a d m i t t h a t h e s t i l l had t h e f i r e a r m s . Where t h e
e n t i r e s i t u a t i o n w a s f r e e from any c o e r c i o n o r d e p r i v a t i o n
of freedom o f a c t i o n by t h e l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s and t h e
s t a t e m e n t s were n o t t h e r e s u l t o f i n t e r r o g a t i o n , t h e r e q u i r e -
ments o f Miranda w e r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e . Oregon v . M a t h i a s o n ,
429 U.S. a t 495, 97 S.Ct. a t 714, 50 L Ed 2d a t 719; Beckwith
v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 425 U.S. 341, 347-48, 96 S.Ct.
1612, 1616-17, 48 L Ed 2d 1, 8 ; United S t a t e s v . Shelby ( 7 t h
Cir. 1 9 7 8 ) , 573 F.2d 971, 975-76; United S t a t e s v . Long
S o l d i e r ( 8 t h C i r , 1 9 7 7 ) , 562 F.2d 601, 603, n . 1 ( 2 ) ; Annot.
3 1 A.L. R. 3d 565, 676-80 (1970).
The h o l d i n g s i n S t a t e v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t of E i g h t h J u d .
Dist. (1978), Mont . , 577 P.2d 849, 35 St.Rep.
481, and S t a t e e x r e l . Kotwicki v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 5 ) ,
166 Mont. 335, 532 P.2d 694, are n o t d i r e c t l y i n p o i n t w i t h
t h i s case b u t lend considerable s t r e n g t h t o t h e S t a t e ' s
position. I n t h o s e c a s e s t h e s t a t e m e n t s o r c o n f e s s i o n s made
by t h e a c c u s e d o c c u r r e d w h i l e i n c u s t o d y . Due t o t h e spe-
c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n e a c h , however, t h e c o n f e s s i o n was
held admissible. I n t h e f i r s t c a s e t h e a c c u s e d made a
s p o n t a n e o u s c o n f e s s i o n a f t e r he had been informed of h i s
rights, Though t h e a c c u s e d was i n a p o l i c e v e h i c l e a t t h e
t i m e h e made t h e c o n f e s s i o n , t h e p o l i c e had n o t e l i c i t e d a
s t a t e m e n t as i n B r e w e r . 577 P.2d a t 854, 35 S t - R e p . a t 487.
I n Kotwicki t h e d e f e n d a n t had n o t been informed of h i s
r i g h t s t o s i l e n c e and a n a t t o r n e y , b u t t h i s C o u r t found t h e
c o n f e s s i o n o r a d m i s s i o n a p p e a r e d uncoerced and s p o n t a n e o u s .
166 Mont. a t 344, 532 P.2d a t 698-99. I n n e i t h e r Kotwicki
n o r D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f E i g h t h Jud. D i s t . d i d t h i s Court at-
tempt t o expand t h e s c o p e o r a p p l i c a t i o n of Miranda beyond
t h e f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e
United S t a t e s Supreme Court.
The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e
c a u s e remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s .
W e Concur:
' Chief4 s t iC &
% 'Ju ce &
&A