No. 82-469
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN
1983
STATE O MONTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
VS .
BRIAN J . WOOD,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i s h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f G a l l a t i n
Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana
Marge Johnson a r q u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l . H e l e n a ,
Montana
A. Michael S a l v a q n i , County A t t o r n e y , Bozeman, Montana
For xespondent :
Thomas M. Gaa a r g u e d , Bozeman, Yontana
Submitted 3 5, 1983
Decided: July 18, 1983
JUL I 8 1983
Filed :
Clerk
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e P r a n k I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f
the Court.
The S t a t e a p p e a l s t h e G a l l a t i n C o u n t y D i s t r i c t C o u r t
o r d e r s u p p r e s s i n g e v i d e n c e found i n a s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o an
a r r e s t f o r i s s u i n g a bad c h e c k . We reverse.
Between J u l y 1 7 , 1 9 8 1 , a n d J u l y 26, 1 9 8 1 , B r i a n Wood
i s s u e d f o u r c h e c k s t h a t t o t a l e d $49.97, and between October
10, 1981, and O c t o b e r 30, 1981, he issued n i n e more that
t o t a l e d $181.79. Each o f these checks w a s returned t o t h e
p a y e e b e c a u s e of i n s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s i n Wood's a c c o u n t . The
p a y e e s d i d n o t c o n t a c t Wood.
On November 2 3 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e j u s t i c e o f t h e p e a c e i s s u e d
an a r r e s t w a r r a n t f o r Wood on t h e c h a r g e o f i s s u i n g a bad
check. There were no previous efforts to secure his
p r e s e n c e t o a n s w e r t h e c h a r g e o r p o s t bond.
A t approximately 7:30 a.m. on December 4, 1981,
Officer David Peterson of the Gallatin County sheriff's
d e p a r t m e n t a r r e s t e d Wood a t h i s home. No o f f e r t o accept
bond ( $ 5 0 0 ) was made n o r was a " n o t i c e t o a p p e a r " o r summons
tendered i n l i e u of a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t .
D u r i n g t h e b o o k i n g p r o c e d u r e a f u l l s e a r c h o f Wood w a s
c o n d u c t e d , a n d o n e gram o f h a s h i s h was f o u n d . On March 2 9 ,
1982, i n f o r m a t i o n s were f i l e d c h a r g i n g Wood w i t h i s s u i n g a
bad c h e c k and w i t h c r i m i n a i p o s s e s s i o n o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s ,
both f e l o n i e s .
Wood p l e a d g u i l t y t o i s s u i n g a bad check. However,
the District Court granted his motion to suppress the
contraband on the basis that the arrest, from which the
s e a r c h stemmed, w a s a n u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l invasion of privacy
under S t a t e v. Carlson (1982), Mont . , 644 P.2d
498, 39 S t . R e p . 802. The l o w e r c o u r t r u l e d t h a t t h e S t a t e
f a i l e d t o show a c o m p e i i l n g s t a t e i n t e r e s t f o r u t i l i z i n g t h e
m o s t i n t r u s i v e means t o e f f e c t u a t e i t s i n t e r e s t .
From t h i s r u l i n g the S t a t e appeals. The s o l e i s s u e
f o r o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n is w h e t h e r a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t was
proper i n t h i s case.
Essentially, the State contends that the District
Court mistakenly extended t h e Carlson d e c i s i o n t o f e l o n i e s .
The Court, in Carlson, clearly limited its ruling to
traffic-related misdemeanors. The i n t e r e s t s o f s o c i e t y i n
the administration of justice is greater here than in
C a r l s o n s i n c e a f e l o n y is i n v o l v e d . T h i s is a s u f f i c i e n t
compelling i n t e r e s t t o j u s t i f y a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t .
We hold the arrest was not a violation of Wood's
constitutional r i g h t of privacy. Full custodial arrests,
s u p p o r t e d by a w a r r a n t , f o r f e l o n i e s a r e proper. F i r s t of
all, t h e apprehension of felony suspects is a compelling
state interest that justifies a f u l l custodial arrest
pursuant t o a warrant. This Court held i n S t a t e ex r e l .
Zander v. District Court ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 0 Mont. 548, 5 9 1 P.2d
656, " [ t l h e r i g h t of individual privacy must yield to a
compelling s t a t e i n t e r e s t . Such c o m p e l l i n g s t a t e i n t e r e s t
e x i s t s where t h e s t a t e e n f o r c e s i t s c r i m i n a l l a w s f o r t h e
benefit and p r o t e c t i o n of other fundamental r i g h t s of its
citizens." 180 Mont. a t 556, 5 9 1 P.2d a t 660. The a p p r e -
hension of felons is p r o p e r enforcement of criminal laws
that w i l l benefit all citizens. Specifically, the
e n f o r c e m e n t of l a w s p r o h i b i t i n g t h e i s s u a n c e of bad c h e c k s
p r o t e c t s v a l u a b l e fundamental r i g h t s of c i t i z e n s .
S e c o n d , C a r l s o n is l i m i t e d t o t r a f f i c - r e l a t e d misde-
meanors. I n C a r l s o n t h i s Court a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e whether a
f u l l custodial arrest was proper for misdemeanor traffic
offenses. C a r l s o n was i n v o l v e d i n a t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t where-
upon h e t o l d t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g p o l i c e t h a t h e had a l i c e n s e
b u t d i d n o t h a v e it w i t h him. The p o l i c e c o u l d n o t immedi-
a t e l y c h e c k on t h i s s t o r y . Later, p o l i c e found d e f e n d a n t
was d r i v i n g w i t h a r e v o k e d l i c e n s e ; t h u s , t h e c i t y c l e r k was
told to mail two "notices to appear" to defendant for
d r i v i n g w i t h o u t a l i c e n s e and o b s t r u c t i n g a n o f f i c e r . The
n o t i c e s summoned t h e d e f e n d a n t t o a p p e a r o n March 11, 1 9 8 1 .
The n o t i c e s were - m a i l e d and when t h e d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o
not
appear, the police obtained a warrant and arrested the
defendant. When t h e a r r e s t o c c u r r e d i n d e f e n d a n t ' s home,
c o n t r a b a n d was o b s e r v e d . Police l a t e r obtained a search
w a r r a n t and s e i z e d t h e contraband. D e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d
w i t h c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s and t h e f t , all
felonies. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u p p r e s s e d t h e s e i z e d e v i d e n c e
because defendant's Fourth Amendment rights had been
violated.
T h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t e n t r y by t h e p o l i c e p u r s u a n t t o
t h e a r r e s t w a r r a n t was u n r e a s o n a b l e a s t h e r e was no j u s t i f i -
c a t i o n o r exigency f o r a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t . Hence, the
o b s e r v a t i o n of t h e c o n t r a b a n d was a w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h w h i c h
i s a l w a y s presumed u n r e a s o n a b l e . C a r l s o n , 6 4 4 P.2d a t 504,
39 St.Rep. a t 810.
The rationale for our holding was based on the
misdemeanor t r a f f i c offenses. Applied to such o f f e n s e s ,
t h e r e w e r e l e s s i n t r u s i v e means t o accomplish the State's
o b j e c t i v e ; t h e r e f o r e , no c o m p e l l i n g i n t e r e s t e x i s t e d f o r t h e
State's invasion of Carlson's privacy. Specifically, the
d e f e n d a n t was n e v e r n o t i f i e d of t h e t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n s and
t h e r e is a s p e c i f i c municipal p o l i c y t h a t p r e v e n t s a r r e s t s
f o r t r a f f i c o f f e n s e s u n l e s s t h e accused does not respond t o
notices. We noted other options less intrusive than an
a r r e s t t h a t t h e c i t y could have u t i l i z e d b u t d i d not.
Further i n d i c a t i o n t h a t Carlson is l i m i t e d t o t r a f f i c -
r e l a t e d misdemeanors is found i n t h e l a s t p a r a g r a p h of the
majority opinion. W stated:
e
". . . i f w e w e r e t o s u s t a i n t h e e n t r y by
the police o f f i c e r s a s reasonable, there
would b e few i n s t a n c e s i n t h e s e r v i c e o f
w a r r a n t s of a r r e s t f o r t r a f f i c - r e l a t e d
o f f e n s e s when t h e o f f i c e r s would n o t g a i n
e n t r a n c e i n s i d e t h e home. Few p e r s o n s a r e
f u l l y d r e s s e d and r e a d y f o r t h e s t r e e t
when t h e y a n s w e r t h e d o o r i n r e s p o n s e t o
a knock. I n e v i t a b l y t h e s e a r c h would b e
h e l d i n c i d e n t t o t h e a r r e s t , and n o t v i c e
versa. The C i r c u i t C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r
t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t h a s been c a r e f u l t o
a v o i d o p e n i n g up s e a r c h e s on t h e b a s i s o f
t r a f f i c - r e l a t e d a r r e s t s , Taglevore v.
U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 2 9 1 F.2d 262; a s
h a s t h e F i f t h C i r c u i t , Amador-Gonzalez v .
U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 3 9 1 F.2d 3 0 8 . " 644
P.2d a t 5 0 5 , 39 S t . R e p . a t 8 1 1 .
Consequently, the D i s t r i c t Court here erroneously
extended Carlson to felonies. Wood was charged with a
v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 45-6-316(1), MCA, a f e l o n y , and a f u l l
c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t was p r o p e r p u r s u a n t t o a v a l i d w a r r a n t .
Third, if e v e r y f e l o n y a r r e s t s u p p o r t e d by a w a r r a n t
was s u b j e c t t o h e i g h t e n e d j u d i c i a l s c r u t i n y , l a w e n f o r c e m e n t
would b e u n r e a s o n a b l y b u r d e n e d . I n e f f e c t , t h e p o l i c e would
h a v e no c l e a r g u i d e l i n e s t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r
a r r e s t w i l l be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y c o r r e c t .
The order of the District Court suppressing the
evidence is vacated, and t h e c a u s e remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t
Court f o r f u r t h e r proceedings.
C h i e f ~ustice \
'L
Justices
Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea w i l l f i l e a s e p a r a t e o p i n i o n l a t e r .