No. 80-485
IN THE SUPRENE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1981
THE STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
VS .
MICHAEL GOPHER,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Cascade.
Honorable John McCarvel, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
John C. Koch argued, Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Mark Murphy argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena,
Montana
J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great Falls, Montana
Randall Snyder argued,Deputy County Attorney, Great Falls,
Montana
Submitted: June 11, 1981
~ecidedJUL
: 9 - 1981
."..u-
- Clerk
Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
the Court.
D e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h f e l o n y b u r g l a r y and f e l o n y
theft. A f t e r a h e a r i n g on May 9 , 1 9 8 0 , d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n
t o suppress i l l e g a l l y s e i z e d e v i d e n c e was d e n i e d . A jury
trial was held on August 18, 1980, and defendant was
convicted on both counts. Defendant appeals, submitting
t h a t t h e C a s c a d e County D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g h i s
motion t o s u p p r e s s .
A t about 5:00 a.m. on March 15, 1980, a silent
burglar a l a r m went o f f a t t h e Warehouse Pawn Shop i n G r e a t
F a l l s , Montana. Officer Stan Johnston arrived a t the scene
about a minute l a t e r . His i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e v e a l e d a broken
window, two large rocks on the floor, a number of empty
spaces in a r i f l e rack, and a f r e s h s e t o f t i r e tracks in
the parking l o t . While i n v e s t i g a t i n g he n o t i c e d a s i n g u l a r
v e h i c l e d r i v i n g s l o w l y p a s t t h e s c e n e and o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e
o c c u p a n t s e x h i b i t e d an un u s u a l c u r i o s i t y i n t h e c r i m e s i t e .
J o h n s t o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e knew from p a s t e x p e r i e n c e
t h a t i t was n o t uncommon f o r b u r g l a r s t o r e t u r n t o t h e s c e n e
of the crime after simply breeking a window. If the
break-in was u n d i s c o v e r e d , t h e y would then enter and take
t h e goods. On t h e b a s i s o f t h e s e f a c t s , J o h n s t o n c a l l e d an
assisting officer (Sharpe) and requested him to stop the
vehicle. O f f i c e r S h a r p e s t o p p e d and a p p r o a c h e d t h e v e h i c l e
shining h i s f l a s h 1i g h t i n t o t h e passenger compartment. He
noticed s e v e r a l r i f l e s on t h e f l o o r . While examining t h e
l i c e n s e of t h e d r i v e r , d e f e n d a n t Michael Gopher, t h e o f f i c e r
noticed the passenger's arm d r o p p i n g t o w a r d t h e g u n s . When
t h e o f f i c e r drew h i s weapon and o r d e r e d t h e o c c u p a n t s o f t h e
car t o g e t o u t of the vehicle, t h e d r i v e r a c c e l e r a t e d and
headed north. A subsequent pursuit by police terminated
w i t h t h e a r r e s t of b o t h p e r s o n s i n t h e c a r .
The s o l e i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i s w h e t h e r t h e t r i a l
court erred when it refused defendant Gopher's motion to
s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e h e a l l e g e s was i l l e g a l l y s e i z e d .
The g i s t o f d e f e n d a n t ' s a r g u m e n t i s t h a t t h e o f f i c e r
who i n i t i a l l y " s t o p p e d " h i s c a r d i d n o t h a v e p r o b a b l e c a u s e
to do so. He maintains that the authorities must have
probable c a u s e t o b e l i e v e h e had committed a c r i m i n a l act
and s u f f i c i e n t c a u s e t o a r r e s t him t o j u s t i f y the search.
See s e c t i o n 4 6 - 5 - 1 0 1 ( 1 ) , MCA. Without probable c a u s e , t h e r e
c a n be no l a w f u l a r r e s t , and w i t h o u t t h e l a w f u l a r r e s t , a
search cannot be properly made as being incident to the
arrest. See section 46-6-401(4), MCA. Officer Sharpe,
defendant maintains, must h a v e had knowledge o f sufficient
facts to believe d e f e n d a n t had c o m m i t t e d the burglary and
that he must be immediately arrested. Gopher emphasizes
that the facts sufficient to properly arrest a defendant
must be known a t t h e moment o f t h e a r r e s t and n o t d i s c o v e r e d
during or after the arrest. S t a t e v. Rader ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177
Mont. 252, 5 8 1 P.2d 4 3 7 . C i t i n g Rader, defendant concludes
that t h i s Court h a s made a clear statement to the effect
t h a t s t o p and f r i s k p r i n c i p l e s do n o t a p p l y t o a d e f e n d a n t
in a vehicle. 581 P.2d a t 440.
A t t h e o u t s e t we r e c o g n i z e t h e Rader rule regarding
s t o p and f r i s k . A l t h o u g h d i c t u m , s u c h a c l e a r e x p r e s s i o n by
t h i s Court p r o h i b i t i n g a p p l i c a t i o n of s t o p and f r i s k r u l e s
t o a u t o m o b i l e s c a n n o t be i g n o r e d .
We also recognize that the facts known to Officer
Johnston at the time he directed Officer Sharpe to stop
defendant's automobile fall short of probable cause. We,
therefore, must determine whether Rader should continue to
be the law in this State and, if not, what standard should
be applied in circumstances such as exist before us here.
The State maintains that the "stop and frisk" doc-
trine should apply to vehicular stops, citing Terry v. Ohio
(1968), 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889. In
'Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that it can be constitu-
tionally permissible for an officer to stop and search a.
person, even in the absence of probable cause. 392 U.S. at
15. This type of encounter must be reviewed as to its
"reasonableness," and take into account the police interest
involved and existence of specific and articulable facts.
The most recent post-Terry decision regarding stop
and frisk is United States v. Cortez (1981), - U.S. I
101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621. In Cortez, the Supreme Court
ruled that objective facts and circumstantial evidence
suggesting that a particular automobile is involved in some
sort of criminal activity is sufficient to warrant a limited
investigatory stop. Chief Justice Burger writes:
"The idea that an assessment of the whole
picture must yield a particularized suspicion
contains two elements, each of which must be
present before a stop is permissible. First,
the assessment must be based upon all the
circumstances. The analysis proceeds with
various objective observations, information
from police reports, if such are available,
and consideration of the modes or patterns of
operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers.
From these data, a trained officer draws
inferences and makes deductions--inferences
and deductions that might well elude an
untrained person.
"The process does not deal with hard
certainties, but with probabilities. Long
before the law of probabilities was articu-
l a t e d a s such, p r a c t i c a l people formulated
c e r t a i n common s e n s e c o n c l u s i o n s a b o u t human
behavior; jurors a s f a c t f i n d e r s a r e permitted
t o do t h e same--and s o a r e law e n f o r c e m e n t
officers. Finally, the evidence thus col-
l e c t e d m u s t b e s e e n and weighed n o t i n t e r m s
o f l i b r a r y a n a l y s i s by s c h o l a r s , b u t a s
u n d e r s t o o d by t h o s e v e r s e d i n t h e f i e l d o f
law e n fo rc e m e n t . " 101 S.Ct. a t 6 9 5 , 66
L.Ed.2d a t 629.
I t s h o u l d be n o t e d h e r e t h a t O f f i c e r J o h n s t o n is an
experienced and knowledgeable member of the Great Falls
police department, having been with the force for over
twelve years. This is a n i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t o f the Cortez
a n a l y s i s , which e m p h a s i z e s t h a t e x p e r i e n c e d l a w e n f o r c e m e n t
authorities are allowed t o draw c e r t a i n c o n c l u s i o n s which
laymen c o u l d n o t p r o p e r l y d r a w i n d e t e r m i n i n g i f a s p e c i f i c
vehicular stop is legally valid. The -o r t e z
C-- court
concludes:
". . . Thus, t h e t e s t is n o t whether o f f i c e r s
Gray and Evans had p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o c o n c l u d e
t h a t t h e v e h i c l e t h e y s t o p p e d would c o n t a i n
'Chevron' and a g r o u p o f i l l e g a l a l i e n s .
R a t h e r t h e q u e s t i o n i s w h e t h e r , b a s e d upon
t h e whole p i c t u r e , t h e y , a s e x p e r i e n c e d
Border Patrol agents, could reasonably
surmise t h a t the p a r t i c u l a r vehicle they
s t o p p e d was engaged i n c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y . On
t h i s record, they could s o conclude." 101
S . C t . a t 6 9 7 , 66 L.Ed.2d a t 6 3 1 .
This Court is convinced that the facts at the
officer's disposal in this case are sufficient to affirm
under C o r t e z . F u r t h e r , our review of c a s e s from n e i g h b o r i n g
jurisdictions r e v e a l s t h a t t h e g r e a t t r e n d of a u t h o r i t y is
in accord. Citing State v. Ruiz ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 9 Ariz.App. 84,
504 P.2d 1 3 0 7 , t h e c o u r t i n S t a t e v . Dean ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 112 A r i z .
437, 543 P.2d 425, held t h a t "I . . . [ a ] founded s u s p i c i o n
is a l l t h a t is n e c e s s a r y , some b a s i s from which t h e c o u r t
can determine that the detention was not arbitrary or
harassing. '" 543 P.2d 425, 427 ( q u o t i n g Wilson v. Porter
( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 6 6 ) , 361 F.2d 4 1 2 , 4 1 5 ) .
In People v. Waits ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 196 Colo. 35, 580 P.2d
391, the Colorado Supreme C o u r t applied the standards of
Stone v. People (1971), 174 Colo. 504, 485 P.2d 495,
stating:
" ' I n order l a w f u l l y t o d e t a i n an i n d i v i d u a l
f o r q u e s t i o n i n g , ( 1 ) t h e o f f i c e r m u s t have a
reasonable suspicion t h a t the individual has
c o m m i t t e d , o r i s a b o u t t o commit, a c r i m e ;
( 2 ) t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e d e t e n t i o n must be
r e a s o n a b l e ; and ( 3 ) t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e
d e t e n t i o n m u s t be r e a s o n a b l e when c o n s i d e r e d
i n l i g h t of t h e purpose.' 174 Colo. a t 509,
485 P . 2 d a t 497.
"We have p r e v i o u s l y a p p l i e d t h e s e s t a n d a r d s
t o investigatory s t o p s involving automobiles.
People v. Mangum, Colo., 539 P . 2 d 120
( 1 9 7 5 ) . " 580 P.2d a t 393.
See a l s o S t a t e v. Bartosz ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 34 0 r . A p p . 1 2 3 , 578 P.2d
426; W a s h i n g t o n v . S t a t e ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 94 Nev. 1 8 1 , 576 P.2d 1 1 2 6 .
Primarily applying the rules of Cortez, the State
submits t h a t s u f f i c i e n t p a r t i c u l a r i z e d suspicion existed t o
j u s t i f y t h e s t o p of d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r . The S t a t e ' s b u r d e n h a s
two e l e m e n t s : ( 1 ) o b j e c t i v e d a t a f r o m which a n e x p e r i e n c e d
officer c a n make certain inferences; and (2) a resulting
s u s p i c i o n t h a t t h e occupant of a c e r t a i n v e h i c l e is o r has
been engaged in wrongdoing or was a witness to criminal
activity. The f u n d a m e n t a l f a c t s p e r s u a d e u s t h a t t h e b u r d e n
was met i n t h i s c a s e .
The o f f i c e r s knew t h a t a c r i m e had b e e n committed--
probably theft, but certainly criminal mischief. They
b e l i e v e d s e v e r a l g u n s had b e e n t a k e n . They knew a v e h i c l e
was p r o b a b l y involved. They o b s e r v e d o n e v e h i c l e d r i v i n g
very slowly p a s t t h e crime scene. Although h i s p o l i c e c a r
was n o t on t h e f r o n t s t r e e t and d i d n o t h a v e i t s f l a s h i n g
lights on, the occupants of the vehicle expressed an
inordinate amount of interest in the scene. These known
f a c t s , combined w i t h t h e d e d u c t i o n s made i n l i g h t o f t w e l v e
years' experience in crime investigation, led Officer
Johnston to s u s p e c t d e f e n d a n t was involved in, or witness
t o , t h e crime.
W reaffirm the traditional
e r u l e of t h i s Court tha.t
dictum is not binding as controlling precedent, S t a t e v.
D i s t r i c t Court ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 139 Mont. 453, 471, 365 P.2d 512,
521, and feel compelled t o abandon the language of Rader
which a p p e a r s t o p r e c l u d e t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e T e r r y s t o p
and f r i s k r u l e s t o v e h i c u l a r s t o p s . I n l i g h t of t h e C o r t e z
decision, and o t h e r p e r s u a s i v e a u t h o r i t y , we now h o l d t h a t
when a t r a i n e d p o l i c e o f f i c e r h a s a p a r t i c u l a r i z e d s u s p i c i o n
t h a t t h e o c c u p a n t of a vehicle is or has been engaged in
criminal activity, or witness thereto, a limited and
r e a s o n a b l e i n v e s t i g a t o r y s t o p and s e a r c h i s j u s t i f i e d .
The d e n i a l o f d e f e n d a n t ' s m o t i o n t o s u p p r e s s and h i s
subsequent conviction a r e affirmed.
W concur:
e
4
2-/+J<%ed
Chief J u s t i c e
w/ 1