No. 84-416
I N T E SUPREME COURT O F THB STATE O M N A A
H F OTN
1985
STATE O F MONTANA,
Plaintiff and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs-
R I C K Y BENDRICKSON,
D e f e n d a n t 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 ,
I n a n d F o r t h e County o f H i l l ,
The H o n o r a b l e Chan E t t i e n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .
COUNSEL O RECORD:
F
For Appellant:
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
K i n K r a d o l f e r a r g u e d , A s s t . A t t y . G e n e r a l , Helena
Ronald W. S m i t h , County A t t o r n e y , Havre, Montana
For Respondent :
Law O f f i c e o f F r a n k Altman; Dan Boucher a r g u e d ,
Havre, Montana
Submitted: ;lay 2, 1385
Decided: J u l y 11 1985
Filed:
Clerk
Mr. 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 Opinion o f
t h e Court.
On J u l y 2 6 , 1984, d e f e n d a n t , Ricky Hendrickson f i l e d a
motion to suppress evidence found during a search of his
vehicle, a l l e g i n g lack of probable cause t o support issuance
of t h e search warrant. Following a h e a r i n g i n t h e Twelfth
Judicial District Court, defendant's m o t i o n was granted on
A u g u s t 6 , 1984. The S t a t e a p p e a l s .
We find that the appl-ication f o r the search warrant
contains s u f f i c i e n t probable cause t o support t h e issuance of
a s e a r c h w a r r a n t and r e v e r s e t h e o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
On January 25, 1984, Sgt. Gene Harada of the Havre
Police Department, acting in response to a confidential
informant's tip, applied f o r and r e c e i v e d a search warrant
from H i l l C o u n t y J u s t i c e o f t h e P e a c e , Edward V a s e c k a . The
i n f o r m a n t was w e l l known t o t h e S e r g e a n t a s h e had p r o v i d e d
rel-iable information to the Sergeant on several other
occasions.
S g t . Harada ' s a f f i d a v i t r e q u e s t i n g i s s u a n c e o f a s e a r c h
warrant s t a t e s :
"An i n f o r m a n t h a s c o n t a c t e d m e w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n
concerning t h e above person. This informant has
t o l d me t h a t t h e y a r e t r a n s p o r t i n g t h e a b o v e d r u g s
t o Great F a l l s t h i s afternoon with t h e i n t e n t of
s e l l i n g them. There i s a music c o n c e r t t o b e held
i n Great F a l l s t h i s evening.
"The i n f o r m a n t s t a t e s t h a t t h e l i s t e d s u s p e c t i s
p l a n n i n g t o l e a v e t h e Havre Area b e t w e e n 1200 h r s .
and 1500 h r s . on J a n . 2 5 , 1 9 8 4 .
"The i n f o r m a n t knows t h e a b o v e l i s t e d s u s p e c t . The
i n f o r m a n t knows t h a t t h e s u s p e c t h a s u s e d d r u g s a n d
h a s b e e n p r e s e n t when t h e s u s p e c t h a s u s e d d r u g s .
"The i n f o r m a n t h a s b e e n i n t h e company o f t h e
s u s p e c t i n t h e v e r y r e c e n t p a s t and h a s h e a r d t h e
s u s p e c t i n d i c a t e t o him t h a t h e was g o i n g t o t r a n s -
p o r t t h e s e d r u g s t o G r e a t Fal-1s today.
" T h i s c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a n t i s known t o m e . I
h a v e had c o n t a c t w i t h t h i s i n f o r m a n t o n a number o f
o t h e r o c c a s i o n s i n which t h e n [ s i c ] i n f o r m a n t h a s
provided information concerning other criminal
i n v e s t i g a t i o n and h a s proved t o b e r e l i a b l e .
"The l i s t e d s u s p e c t h a s b e e n u n d e r s u r v e i l l a n c e b y
t h e H a v r e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t and H i l l C o u n t y S h e r i f f
o f f i c e because of o t h e r i n t e l l i g e n c e information
r e c i e v e d [ s i c ] o v e r t h e p a s t s i x ( 6 ) weeks."
The warrant application described the vehicle to be
s e a r c h e d a s " a 1 9 7 8 R o y a l B l u e F o r d LTD I1 w i t h a r e a r s p o i l -
e r o n t r u n k , mag w h e e l s , d o u b l e w h i t e s t r i p down b o t h s i d e s
o f t h e v e h i c l e a n d h a s a 2 0 s t i c k e r i n r e a r window. This i s
registure [ s i c ] t o Ricky Hendrickson." The p r o p e r t y a l l e g e d
t o b e i n t h e c a r was " a l a r g e amount o f m a r i j u a n a . "
T h a t same d a y , Sgt. Harada stopped d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r and
searched it p u r s u a n t to the search warrant. Two b a g s of
marijuana (125.92 grams), a prescription bottle thought to
c o n t a i n LSD a n d two w a t e r p i p e s w e r e s e i z e d . H e n d r i c k s o n was
charged w i t h c r i m i n a l possession o f dangerous drugs.
I n s u p p o r t o f h i s motion t o s u p p r e s s , Hendrickson a l l e g -
es t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t s u p p o r t i n g t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t f a i l e d t o
set forth sufficient facts to establish probable cause to
i s s u e t h e w a r r a n t a n d t h a t t h e J u s t i c e o f t h e P e a c e r e l i e d on
information outside the four corners of the affidavit in
issuing t h e search warrant. S p e c i f i c a l l y , Hendrickson a l l e g -
es t h a t the Justice of t h e Peace considered unsworn, oral
answers t o q u e s t i o n s posed t o S g t . Harada.
At t h e h e a r i n g on defendant's motion t o suppress, the
Justice of the Peace testified that he always questions
o f f i c e r s p r i o r t o issuing search warrants. He further stated
that the affidavit contained probable cause t o support t h e
warrant, but that he would never have issued it without
questioning t h e Sergeant. R e l y i n g s o l e l y on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n
within t h e four corners of Sgt. Harada's a f f i d a v i t , t h e t r i a l
judge found a l a c k o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o i s s u e a s e a r c h war-
r a n t and d e n i e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n .
The S t a t e o f Montana r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s i n i t s
a p p e a 1:
1. W h e t h e r t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t was s u p p o r t e d b y p r o b a b l e
cause?
2. W h e t h e r t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r r e a s o n a b l y a n d i n good
f a i t h r e l i e d on t h e J u s t i c e o f t h e Peace's determination of
probable cause s o a s t o preclude application of t h e exclu-
sionary rule?
The c u r r e n t t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a n i n f o r m a n t ' s
t i p e s t a b l i s h e s probable cause f o r issuance of a warrant i s
found in I l l i n o i s v. Gates ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103
" [ W l e c o n c l u d e t h a t it i s w i s e r t o a b a n d o n t h e
'two-pronged t e s t ' e s t a b l i s h e d by o u r d e c i s i o n s i n
A g u i l a r and S p i n e l l i . I n i t s p l a c e we r e a f f i r m t h e
t o t a l i t y of t h e circumstances analysis t h a t t r a d i -
t i o n a 1 ; h a s informed probable c a u s e determina-
1
tions. [Citations omitted. ] The t a s k o f t h e
i s s u i n g m a g i s t r a t e i-s s i m p l y t o make a p r a c t i c a l ,
common-sense d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r , g i v e n a l l t h e c i r -
cumstances s e t f o r t h i n t h e a f f i d a v i t b e f o r e him,
including the v e r a c i t y f and ' b a s i s o f knowledge '
of p e r s o n s s u p p l y i n g h e a r s a y i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e r e i s
a f a i r p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t contraband o r evidence o f a
crime w i l l be f o u n d i n a p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e . And t h e
duty o f a reviewing c o u r t i s simply t o ensure t h a t
t h e m a g i s t r a t e had a ' s u b s t a n t i a l b a s i s f o r ...
conclud [ing] t h a t probable cause existed. Jones
v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , s u p r a , 362 U.S.,
- a t 2 7 1 , 80
S . C t . , a t 736." (footnote omitted)
This "totality of the circumstances" test has been
adopted in this State. S t a t e v. O'Neill (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 679
P.2d 760, 41 St.Rep. 420. It completely replaces t h e m o r e
s t r i n g e n t , two-prong Aguilar-Spinelli test. For discussions
of t h a t t e s t , see A g u i l a r v . Texas ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 378 U.S. 1.08, 84
S.Ct. 1 5 0 9 , 1 2 L.Ed.2d 723; 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. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 2 1 L.Ed.2d 637; and S t a t e v.
E r l e r (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 672 P.2d 6 2 4 , 40 S t . R e p . 1915.
The information contained in Sgt. Harada's affidavit
s a t i s f i e s t h e probable cause test set f o r t h i n Gates, supra.
I t i n c l u d e s i n f o r m a t i o n concerning t h e p l a c e where t h e d r u g s
could be found; t h e d a t e and t i m e when t h e d r u g s c o u l d b e
found; t h e kind o f drugs involved; t h e intended use of the
drugs; an accurate description of defendant's car; and an
accurate description of defendant's travel plans. It a1s o
states that informant had been present when the defendant
used drugs; t h a t defendant personally t o l d i n f o r m a n t h e was
g o i n g t o t r a n s p o r t d r u g s t o G r e a t F a l l s on J a n u a r y 25, 1984;
a n d t h a t i n f o r m a n t was b e l i e v e d r e l i a b l e b e c a u s e o f r e l i a b l e
i n f o r m a t i o n p r e v i o u s l y p r o v i d e d b y him t o t h e p o l i c e .
Defendant suggests that probable cause is not estab-
l i s h e d i n t h i s c a s e f o r numerous r e a s o n s . The i n f o r m a n t d i d
not adequately explain "they" when stating that "they are
going t o take t h e drugs t o Great F a l l s . " The i n f o r m a n t d i d
n o t c l a i m t o have seen t h e d r u g s , n o r d i d h e know w h e r e i n
t h e c a r t h e d r u g s c o u l d b e found. The i n f o r m a n t p r o v i d e d n o
i n f o r m a t i o n i n d i c a t i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t was a r e t a i l e r , whole-
s a l e r o r d i s t r i b u t o r of marijuana. And f i n a l l y , the use of
t h e t e r m "indicate" i n "informant . . . has heard t h e suspect
indicate1' is too broad. To give credence t o defendant's
a r g u m e n t would b e t o p l a c e " u n d u e a t t e n t i o n . . . on isolated
i s s u e s t h a t c a n n o t s e n s i b l y b e d i v o r c e d from t h e o t h e r f a c t s
presented t o the magistrate." Gates, 462 U.S. a t 234-235,
103 S . C t . a t 2 3 3 0 , 76 L.Ed.2d a t 545-546.
The "totality of the circumstances," from t h e f a c e of
S g t . Harada ' s a f f i d a v i t , c l e a r l y s u p p o r t s a f i n d i n g o f p r o b a -
ble cause. We approve the trial judge's refusal to look
beyond the four corners of that affidavit. No i n f o r m a t i o n
o b t a i n e d d u r i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n between the Justice of the
P e a c e a n d S g t . H a r a d a may b e u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e p r o b a b l e c a u s e
b e c a u s e t h e S e r g e a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t s w e r e unsworn, u n s i g n e d and
n o t a p a r t of t h e record. S t a t e e x r e l . Townsend v . D i s t r i c t
Court (1975), 1 6 8 Mont. 357, 363, 5 4 3 P.2d 193, 196. he
occurrence of t h a t conversation does not adversely a f f e c t t h e
finding t h a t probable cause to i s s u e a search warrant e x i s t s
b e c a u s e t h a t f i n d i n g rests s o l e l y on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e
affidavit. S t a t e v. Thomson ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 6 9 Mont. 1 5 8 , 1 6 2 , 545
P.2d 1070, 1072. However, w e d i s a p p r o v e o f w h a t a p p e a r s t o
be the habit of this Justice of t h e Peace t o conduct such
conversations .
S i n c e we find the search warrant to be supported by
probable cause contained within the four corners of Sgt.
Harada's a f f i d a v i t , it i s u n n e c e s s a r y t o d i s c u s s t h e s e c o n d ,
"good f a i t h " i s s u e r a i s e d b y t h e S t a t e .
R e v e r s e d and remanded f o r t r i a l . t
W e concur:
Justices
Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, dissenting:
It is a disservice to the District Judge, the Honorable
Chan Ettien, not to discuss the reasons on which he found
that the warrant in this case was improvidently issued.
In his written memorandum, after stating his observation
respecting the ambiguities of the application for warrant,
Zudge Ettien noted:
"There is not a smidgeon of information in the
application purportedly or impliedly from the
surveillance. One could gather that there was
substantial surveillance of Defendant's residence
and movements. One must presume no suspicions of
criminal action surfaced, particularly of
trafficking, which would have been of material
underlying circumstance.
"Judge Vasecka made it clear, during examination
that he included his oral interrogation of Harada
in his decision to issue the warrant. That he
relied. on Harada's statements, not on the
informant's as to the information in the
appl-ication.
"Judge Vasecka made it clear also that the critical
basis for his issuance of the writ was the oral
conversations with Ha-rada at the time Harada
applied. Admittedly, this conversation was oral,
not under oath, and had not been reduced to writing
and made a part of the original application.
Thompson v. stad ad ( 1 9 7 9 ) 182 M - 1 1 9 : state - -
ex re1
Townsend (1975) .168 Mont 3 5 7 .
"The application does not (other than allegation of
Defendant's personal use) establish that the crime
charged has been committed or is being committed.
We have only the unsubstantiated statement that
there is a large quantity of marijuana in
Defendant's car . . ."
Under our state constitution, Article 11, Section 11, it
is prescribed that no warrant to search any place or thing
shall issue "without probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation reduced t o writing."
.
Judge Ettien followed the constitution in determining
that the information on which Judge Vasecka relied. to issue
the warrant had not been reduced to writing. Therefore the
warrant was invalid.
All the esoteric discussion in the majority opinion
respecting the decision in Illinois v. Gates, supra, Jones v.
United States, et all have no bearing on this case. It is a
simple matter that the justice of the peace did not rely on
the four-corners of the application, but instead depended on
unsworn information from the constable to issue the warrant
for search. Judge Ettj-en was correct in his decision. I
would affirm.
Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., concurs with the foregoing
dissent.