State v. Wilson

No. 85-188
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1985

STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
-vs-
LLOYD WILSON,
Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Hill,
The Honorable Chan Ettien, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:
Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Ronald Smith, County Attorney, Havre, Montana

For Respondent :
Charles E. Petaja, Helena, Montana

Submitted on briefs: Aug. 22, 1-985
Decided: October 31, 1985

Clerk
M r . J u s t i c e F r a n k B. Morrison, Jr. d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of
t h e Court.

On January 14, 1985, defendant Lloyd Wilson filed a

m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e found d u r i n g a s e a r c h o f a H a v r e ,

Montana, m o t e l room i n which h e was r e s i d i n g . Following an

evidentiary hearing, the District Court of the Twelfth

Judicial District granted defendant's motion. The State

appeals.

On September 14, 1 9 8 4 , A l e x Tomaskie c a l l e d t h e Havre

P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t f o r t h e t h i r d t i m e i n a month t o r e p o r t h i s

13 year old daughter missing. On t h e p r e v i o u s two o c c a s i o n s ,

i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a y e d t o t h e p o l i c e by M r . Tomaskie r e s u l t e d i n

the locating of his daughter. On this occasion, Tomaskie

i n f o r m e d t h e p o l i c e t h a t h i s d a u g h t e r had phoned t o s a y s h e

was with a Dana Wilson in a c a r with "WILSON 2'' license

p l a t e s a t a m o t e l and was t o o i n t o x i c a t e d t o come home. Mr.

Tomaskie a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he c o u l d h e a r a g i r l g i g g l i n g i n

t h e background d u r i n g t h e c a l l . A f t e r a previous escapade,

Tomaskie's d a u g h t e r had told her father that Lloyd Wilson

provided the alibi by which she was able to run away.

However, she was not found with Wilson on either of the

previous occasions.

Recognizing t h e l i c e n s e p l a t e number a s t h a t o f a car

b e l o n g i n g t o d e f e n d a n t , Lloyd W i l s o n , t h e p o l i c e went t o h i s

home. The car was not there. The police then began

s e a r c h i n g Havre m o t e l s f o r Wilson's c a r . I t was l o c a t e d b y

Deputy Mygland a t t h e Cloud 9 Motel a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 11:30

p.m., September 1 4 , 1984. Mygland asked t h e desk c l e r k i f

Lloyd Wilson was a guest. The clerk responded that yes,

W i l s o n was in room 208, registered under t h e name o f John

Anderson.
 Deputies Stolen, Roe a n d Mygland approached room 208.

Stolen knocked on the door, but did not i d e n t i f y himself.

A f t e r a minute o r s o Wilson answered, opening t h e d o o r 18 t o

24 i n c h e s . Deputy S t o l e n i m m e d i a t e l y p l a c e d h i s f o o t a c r o s s

t h e t h r e s h o l d o f t h e d o o r , p r e v e n t i n g it f r o m b e i n g c l o s e d b y

Wilson should he a t t e m p t t o do so. Instead, Wilson stood

directly in front of the door opening while talking with

Stolen.

Stolen asked if the Tomaskie girl was in the room.

W i l s o n d e n i e d knowing t h e g i r l a n d s t a t e d t h a t h e w a s a l o n e .

The only light in the room w a s that of a burning candle.

However through the c r a c k on t h e hinged side of t h e door,

D e p u t y S t o l e n c o u l d see movement i n t h e room w h i c h h e t h o u g h t

c o u l d b e a young g i r l g e t t i n g d r e s s e d . H e c o u l d a l s o see a

pipe lying on a table and smell marijuana and incense

burning. Stolen then informed defendant that unless the

person i n t h e room came o u t s o t h a t h e c o u l d see i f it was

t h e Tomaskie g i r l , h e would b e r e t u r n i n g w i t h a w a r r a n t . The

girl, 1 6 y e a r o l d Tamie K i e c k e r , and Wilson t h e n e x i t e d t h e

room. W i l s o n c l o s e d t h e m o t e l d o o r b e h i n d him a n d it w a s n o t

reopened u n t i l t h e p o l i c e obtained a s e a r c h warrant.

Tamie Kiecker was taken to the police station by

S e r g e a n t Harada. B e f o r e l e a v i n g t h e s c e n e , however, s h e t o l d

t h e s e r g e a n t t h a t t h e r e was m a r i j u a n a i n t h e room a n d t h a t it

did not belong t o her; and t h a t t h e Tomaskie g i r l was n o t i n

t h e m o t e l room.

Wilson was also taken to the police station and

arrested. D e p u t y S t o l e n r e q u e s t e d C i t y J u d g e E r n e s t Hofmann

t o i s s u e a s e a r c h w a r r a n t f o r t h e m o t e l room, and p r e s e n t e d

him w i t h t h e f o l . l o w i n g a f f i d a v i t :

1) On 0 9 1 4 8 4 , a t 2153 H r s . A l e x T o m a s k i e c a l l e d i n
a n d r e p o r t e d [M.T. ] a r u n a w a y . s h e was r e p o r t e d t o
b e w i t h a Dana W i l s o n i n a 1 9 7 5 Chevy Monte C a r l o
L i c / W i l s o n 2. [M.T.] is 13 y e a r s o f age. H e r dob
i s 092470.

2) On 0 8 1 6 8 4 , A l e x T o m a s k i e c a l l e d i n a n d r e p o r t e d
[M.T.] a s a runaway. On t h e same d a t e s h e w a s
l o c a t e d a t t h e A l f r e d F r e d r i c k s o n s r e s i d e n c e a t 840
5 t h st. N. On 0 8 2 5 8 4 , Alex Tornaskie c a l l e d i n a n d
r e p o r t e d [M.T.] a s a r u n a w a y . She was l o c a t e d a t
R i c k C l a r k r e s i d e n c e a t Shennum T r a i l e r ] C o u r t # 7 .
I n b o t h i n c i d e n t s A l e x Tomaskie c a l l e d i n a g a v e u s
t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n a s t o w h e r e [M.T.] was a t . In
both incidents it proved to be reliable
information.

3 ) On 0 9 1 4 8 4 , A l e x T o m a s k i e c a l l e d i n and a d v i s e d
t h a t [M.T.] c a l l e d him a t 2303 a n d t o l d h i m t h a t
s h e w a s a t a M o t e l b u t w a s t o o d r u n k t o come home.

4 ) W h i l e l o o k i n g f o r [M.T.] t h e d e p u t i e s c h e c k e d
t h e Lloyd Wilson r e s i d e n c e and found t h e c a r Wilson
2 not there. The v e h i c l e w a s l o c a t e d a t t h e C l o u d
9 Motel i n Havre.

5) O n 081684 a t 2000 [M.T.] was r e p o r t e d a s a
runaway by Alex Tomaskie. A f t e r s h e was t u r n e d
o v e r t o h e r p a r e n t s on t h e same d a t e , 2 0 4 0 , s h e
s t a t e d t o h e r p a r e n t s t h a t Lloyd Wilson had h e l p e d
h e r runaway.

6 ) D e p u t y Mygland t a l k e d t o t h e d e s k c l e r k , Mark
Roseman. Mark Roseman s t a t e d t h a t L l o y d W i l s o n w a s
r e g i s t e r e d i n Room 208 u n d e r t h e a s s u m e d name o f
John Anderson. D e p u t y Mygland a s k e d Mark Roseman
i f h e knew L l o y d W i l s o n , a n d h e s t a t e d t h a t h e h a s
known L l o y d W i l s o n f o r some t i m e .

'7) D e p u t i e s w e n t u p a n d k n o c k e d on t h e d o o r t o
Room 2 0 8 , a f t e r a l o n g p a u s e L l o y d W i l s o n a n s w e r e d
t h e door. The d e p u t i e s o b s e r v e d a g i r l b e l i e v e d t o
b e u n d e r t h e a g e o f 16. T h i s was d e t e r m i n e d
because o f h e r appearance and a c t i o n s . I t appeared
t o l o o k a s s h e was g e t t i n g d r e s s e d . This juvenile
g i r l was removed f r o m t h e room a n d t a k e n t o t h e
Havre P o l i c e Department.

8 ) T h i s a p p l i c a n t smelled what h e b e l i e v e d t o be
Marijuana and I n s e n t s . [Incense]

9 ) A p p l i c a n t saw a c a n d l e b u r n i n g a n d w h a t h e
b e l i e v e d t o b e some t y p e o f p i p e o n t h e c o f f e e
table. L l o y d W i l s o n made e v e r y e f f o r t t o c o n c e a l
t h e t a b l e from t h e a p p l i c a n t s view.

1 0 ) The m i n o r removed f r o m t h e room s t a t e d t o
D e p u t y Mygland a n d S g t . H a r a d a t h a t t h e r e w a s
m a r i j u a n a i n t h e M o t e l Room. S h e s t a t e d t h a t it
d i d n o t belong t o her.

11) Ll-oyd W i l s o n h a s t h e r e p u t a t i o n i n t h e Havre
area a s a user o f i l l e g a l drugs.
[Typographical e r r o r s i n o r i g i n a l . ]
The C i t y J u d g e g r a n t e d t h e request. The subsequent search

uncovered marijuana and o t h e r d r u g s , drug paraphernalia and

$921.00 i n c a s h .

Defendant's motion to the District Court requesting

supression of that evidence contains numerous allel-~ations,

including:

1. The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a search warrant includes f a l s e

and m i s l e a d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n ;

2. The facts in the application which allegedly

constitute probable cause for issuance o f a search warrant

were obtained by illegal, unwarranted and nonconsensual

intrusion;

3. The a p p l i c a t i o n lacks probable cause t o support t h e

issuance of a search warrant;

4. The application does not adequately establish the

reliability and credibility of informants who provided

i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o f d r u g s i n t h e m o t ~ lroom

and i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s r e p u t a t i o n .

O v e r t h e S t a t e ' s o b j e c t i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o show

substantial evidence that the police had used false and

misleading information in the affidavit, an evidentiary

h e a r i n g was h e l d o n a l l g r o u n d s . A t the request of the State

and w i t h o u t objection from d e f e n d a n t , the trial judge also

v i s i t e d t h e m o t e l room u n d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s a l l e g e d l y s i m i l a r

to those on the night of the search, stood where Deputy

S t o l e n a l l e g e d l y s t o o d a n d saw f o r h i m s e l f w h a t D e p u t y S t o l e n

a l l e g e d l y saw f r o m t h e d o o r w a y o f t h e room. Thereafter, an

o r d e r a n d memorandum w e r e i s s u e d g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n

t o suppress. The t r i a l judge found t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n

the affidavit was misleading; the facts stated in the

a f f i d a v i t w e r e o b t a i n e d from an i l l e g a l s e a r c h ; t h e a f f i d a v i t

failed t o establish the credibility of t h e informants; and
the affidavit failed to establish probable cause for the

issuance of a search warrant.

In its appeal, the State raises the following issues:

1. Did H i l l County l a w enforcement o f f i c e r s approach

defendant's room on a pretext and rely on deliberate

falsehoods or reckless misrepresentation of the truth to

obtain t h e search warrant?

2. Did D e p u t y S t o l e n c o n d u c t a w a r r a n t l e s s e n t r y i n t o

the defendant's motel room by placing his foot on the

threshold of that room and, therefore, conduct an

u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h and s e i z u r e ?

3. Did p r o b a b l e c a u s e e x i s t f o r i s s u a n c e o f t h e s e a r c h

warrant?

I n S t a t e v. Sykes ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 6 6 3 P.2d 691, 695, 40 S t . R e p .

690, 694, t h i s C o u r t a d o p t e d t h e t e s t set f o r t h b y t h e U n i t e d

S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n F r a n k s v . Delaware ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 438 U.S.

154, 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 2684, 57 L.Ed.2d 667, 682, for

challenging the validity of an affidavit on the basis of

deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth.

Initially, "defendant must make a substantial preliminary

showing t h a t h i s r i g h t s have been v i o l a t e d . " S y k e s , 6 6 3 P.2d

a t 6 9 5 , 40 S t . R e p . a t 694.

The trial judge found that defendant' s affidavit

alleging use by the State of false statements in its

application f o r a search warrant constituted a "substantial

p r e l i m i n a r y showing." Absent a clear a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n by

t h e t r i a l judge, t h i s Court w i l l n o t overturn h i s decision i n

this matter. Defendant's affidavit alleges, among other

things, t h a t t h e real. reason behind the officers' visit to

h i s motel room w a s t o g a i n e n t r y i n t o h i s room i n o r d e r t o

search f o r d r u g s a n d t h a t when h e c o n f r o n t e d D e p u t y S t o l e n

with such an allegation, Stolen replied "we have been
watching you." These assertions alone constitute a

" s u b s t a n t i a l p r e l i m i n a r y showing" t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s a f f i d a v i t

was b a s e d on d e l i b e r a t e f a l s e h o o d o r r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a r d for

the truth. Therefore, we hold t h a t t h e t r i a l judge d i d n o t

err in c o n s i d e r i n g e v i d e n c e on this issue a t t h e probable

cause hearing.

R e g a r d i n g i s s u e s two and t h r e e , w e f i n d it i m p o s s i b l e t o

r u l e on t h e l o w e r c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n d u e t o t h e i n a d e q u a c i e s o f

t h a t c o u r t ' s findings.

The t r i a l j u d g e s t a t e d " S t o l e n ' s a c t i o n i n c r o s s i n g t h e

t h r e s h o l d and jamming h i s b o o t a g a i n s t t h e d o o r s o i t c o u l d

n o t b e c l o s e d was a w a r r a n t l e s s i n t r u s i o n f o r p u r p o s e s o f a

search." However, d e f e n d a n t opened t h e d o o r i n r e s p o n s e t o

Stolen's knock. Apparently defendant made no attempt to

close the door. Neither, of course, did defendant invite

Stolen i n t o h i s room. "What a p e r s o n k n o w i n g l y e x p o s e s t o

t h e p u b l i c , e v e n i n h i s own home o r o f f i c e , i s n o t a s u b j e c t

of Fourth Amendment protection. " Katz v. United States

( 1 9 6 7 ) , 389 U.S. 3 4 7 , 3 5 1 , 88 S . C t . 5 0 7 , 5 1 1 , 19 L.Ed.2d 576,

582. Unfortunately, the trial judge makes no finding on

w h e t h e r o r n o t d e f e n d a n t k n o w i n g l y e x p o s e d h i s m o t e l room t o

the police officer. The trial judge makes no finding

regarding whether o r not Deputy S t o l e n i n t r u d e d beyond any

i n v i t a t i o n d e f e n d a n t might have e x t e n d e d . Further, there are

no f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r , if S t o l e n d i d i n t r u d e beyond

defendant's i n v i t a t i o n , t h e i n t r u s i o n had a n y e f f e c t on w h a t

S t o l e n was a b l e t o o b s e r v e i n t h e m o t e l room. In fact, the

trial judge made no finding with respect t o what exactly

Deputy Stolen could observe from t h e doorway o f t h e motel

room, s t a t i n g instead t h a t " [ t l h e l i g h t i n g was s o p o o r t h a t

one is led to believe that Deputy Stolen's appraisal

c o n t a i n e d a good m e a s u r e o f w i s h f u l t h i n k i n g . "
 Therefore, w e remand 'chis cause t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court

f o r a second e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , a f t e r which t h e t r i a l judge

s h a l l make f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law c o n s i s t e n t

w i t h t h e above, a s w e l l a s f i n d i n g s r e g a r d i n g whether o r n o t

probable cause existed in Deputy Stolen's affidavit to

support issuance of a search warrant.

Finally, we disapprove of the trial court' s

participation in the recreation of the scene. There is

a b s o l u t ~ l yno way t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e saw e x a c t l y

w h a t Deputy S t o l e n saw on t h e n i g h t o f t h e a r r e s t and s e a r c h .

T7isits t o t h e s c e n e s h o u l d b e d e s i g n e d f o r t h e t r i e r o f fact

t o view t h e s c e n e , n o t f o r t h e t r i e r o f f a c t t o p l a c e h i m s e l f

in the shoes of one of the parties. The trial judge's

determination should be based s o l e l y on t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t

application and the evidence presented at the second

evidentiary hearing.

Affirmed in part and remanded for a new evidentiary

hearing.

W e concur: