Strung v. Anderson

No. 12813

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN

1975

NORMAN STRUNG and PRISCILLA STRUNG,

P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,

.
L. D. W ANDERSON, HANK FEDDES , CARL
SMITH and LES GEE,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record:

For Appellants :

B e r g e r , Anderson, S i n c l a i r and Murphy, B i l l i n g s ,
Montana
James J. S i n c l a i r a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana

F o r Respondents :

C o r e t t e , Smith and Dean, B u t t e , Montana
Dolphy 0. Pohlman, J r . a r g u e d , and Kendrick Smith,
a p p e a r e d , B u t t e , Montana

Submitted: J a n u a r y 1 3 , 1975

-
Decided: FEB 111975
--Ek
z

Filed :
c 1 2,'b
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f
t h e Court.

T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a summary judgment g r a n t e d by t h e

d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County, i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t s , respond-

e n t s here.

A p p e l l a n t s a r e r e s i d e n t s of G a l l a t i n County. Respond-

e n t s a r e L.D.W. Anderson, t h e n s h e r i f f of G a l l a t i n County and

t h r e e d e p u t y s h e r i f f s of t h a t c o u n t y . On J u l y 2 3 , 1967, a
s e a r c h w a r r a n t was i s s u e d a t t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e Bozeman c h i e f

of p o l i c e and a t t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e G a l l a t i n County a t t o r n e y ,

by a j u s t i c e of t h e p e a c e , d i r e c t i n g r e s p o n d e n t s and p e a c e
o f f i c e r s t o s e a r c h t h e home o f a p p e l l a n t s Norman S t r u n g and

Priscilla Strung. Respondents had n o t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e i n v e s -
t i g a t i v e work p r e p a r a t o r y t o r e q u e s t i n g t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t , n o r

d i d t h e y p a r t i c i p a t e i n any way i n o b t a i n i n g t h e w a r r a n t . It

was l a t e r d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t was e r r o n e o u s l y

o b t a i n e d from a j u s t i c e of t h e p e a c e , n o t from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .

Respondents' d e p o s i t i o n s r e v e a l t h e y were accompanied by
t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y and h i s s t a f f a l o n g w i t h c i t y policemen i n

two s e a r c h e s f o r d r u g s . None of r e s p o n d e n t s , though p r e s e n t ,

d i d any of t h e a r r e s t i n g of i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d b u t a p p e l l a n t

S t r u n g s were imprisoned a t t h e c o u n t y j a i l where t h e y were h e l d

f o r s e v e r a l d a y s u n t i l b a i l c o u l d be a r r a n g e d a t t h e d i r e c t i o n
of t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y . A p p e l l a n t s were c h a r g e d w i t h t h e pos-

s e s s i o n of d a n g e r o u s d r u g s , which c h a r g e was d i s m i s s e d by t h e

c o u n t y a t t o r n e y on October 2 1 , 1967. Thereafter appellants
b r o u g h t s u i t a g a i n s t r e s p o n d e n t s f o r f a l s e a r r e s t and f a l s e i m -

prisonment.
The s o l e i s s u e h e r e i s whether o r n o t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g r e s p o n d e n t s ' motion f o r summary judgment.

A p p e l l a n t s n o t e t h a t t h e w a r r a n t i n v o l v e d was i s s u e d p u r -

s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 54-112, R.C.M. 1947 ( s i n c e r e p e a l e d ) . That
~ c a t u t e a s a unique s t a t u t e governing t h e i s s u a n c e of s e a r c h
w

wilrrants i n n a r c o t i c c a s e s . I t provided i n p a r t :

" I f upon t h e sworn c o m p l a i n t o f a n y p e r s o n , it
s h a l l be made t o a p p e a r t o a n y j u d g e o f t h e d i s -
t r i c t c o u r t t h a t t h e r e i s probable cause t o
b e l i e v e t h a t n a r c o t i c drugs a r e being * * * ke P t
c o n t r a r y t o law, such judge s h a l l * * * i s s u e a
warrant d i r e c t e d t o any peace o f f i c e r i n t h e
c o u n t y commanding him t o s e a r c h t h e p r e m i s e s
l e s i g n e d and d e s c r i b e d i n s u c h c o m p l a i n t a n d
w a r r a n t , and t o s e i z e a l l n a r c o t i c d r u g s t h e r e
found * * *. No w a r r a n t s h a l l i s s u e t o s e a r c h
a p r i v a t e dwel-ling o c c u p i e d a s s u c h * * *."

A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t from t h e v e r y f a c e o f t h e w a r r a n t ,

i t w a s o b v i o u s t h e j u s t i c e o f t h e p e a c e had e x c e e d e d h i s j u r i s -

d i c t i o n i n i s s u i n g t h e w a r r a n t and t h a t respondent peace o f f i c e r s

were bound t o know t h a t s u c h a s e a r c h w a r r a n t was v o i d and t h a t

i f t h e y e x e c u t e d t h e same t h e y d i d s o a t t h e i r p e r i l . Having

been p l a c e d i n j a i l , a p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h e o n l y d e f e n s e t o t h i s
a c t i o n o f f a l s e i m p r i s o n m e n t was t h a t i t was d o n e (1) b a s e d o n

t h e a d v i c e of t h e county a t t o r n e y and ( 2 ) p u r s u a n t t o a s e a r c h

w a r r a n t , and t h e s e a r e q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t s o summary judgment

should n o t have i s s u e d .

F i r s t , w e n o t e t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t w a s v a l i d on i t s f a c e

a s t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t p e a c e o f f i c e r s when i t was shown t o them

by t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y when h e o r d e r e d them t o a s s i s t i n t h e

search. I t was n o t u n t i l o v e r a y e a r a n d a h a l f l a t e r when t h i s

C o u r t i n S t a t e v . Langan, 1 5 1 Mont. 558, 445 P.2d 565, h e l d t h a t

only a d i s t r i c t c o u r t judge could i s s u e a s e a r c h warrant f o r
n a r c o t i c s , t h a t t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t i n t h e i n s t a n t
case w a s d e t e r m i n e d . I t i s t h i s C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n t h a t it would

p u t t o o g r e a t a b u r d e n on l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s t o make them
s u b j e c t t o damages e v e r y t i m e t h e y m i s c a l c u l a t e d i n what a c o u r t

of l a s t r e s o r t would d e t e r m i n e c o n s t i t u t e d a n i n v a s i o n o f con-
stitutional rights.

Under a f a c t s i t u a t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e
f e d e r a l c o u r t i n Daly v . P e d e r s e n , 278 F.Supp. 88, 93, (D.Minn.

1967) had t h i s t o s a y r e g a r d i n g a c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n a g a i n s t two

sheriff's officers:

" ' I t would r e q u i r e law enforcement o f f i c e r s t o
respond i n damages e v e r y t i m e t h e y m i s c a l c u l a t e d
i n r e g a r d t o what a c o u r t o f l a s t r e s o r t would
d e t e r m i n e c o n s t i t u t e d an i n v a s i o n of c o n s t i t u -
t i o n a l r i g h t s , even where, a s h e r e , a t r i a l judge--
more l e a r n e d i n t h e law t h a n a p o l i c e o f f i c e r - -
h e l d t h a t no s u c h v i o l a t i o n o c c u r r e d .

" ' S o l o n g a s t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n d u c t stemmed
from h i s r e a s o n a b l e b e l i e f a s t o t h e r e q u i r e -
ments of t h e law and was n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e i n any
o t h e r way, he c a n n o t be h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e - - u n d e r
t h e s t a n d a r d of l i a b i l i t y s e t f o r t h i n Monroe v .
Pape--for t h e d e p r i v a t i o n of p l a i n t i f f ' s r i g h t s .
"No one h a s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o be f r e e
from a law o f f i c e r ' s h o n e s t m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of
t h e law o r f a c t s i n making an a r r e s t q 1 . [ C i t i n g
c a s e ] Thus, t h e a c t i o n of a p o l i c e o f f i c e r
o a n n o t be t o r t i o u s when t h e o f f i c e r p r o c e e d s on
t h e b a s i s of h i s r e a s o n a b l e , good f a i t h under-
s t a n d i n g o f t h e law and d o e s n o t a c t w i t h un-
reasonable violence o r subject t h e c i t i z e n t o
u n u s u a l i n d i g n i t y . The f a c t s a l l e g e d i n t h e com-
p l a i n t demonstrate conclusively t h a t t h e defend-
a n t c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y have f o r s e e n t h a t a
d e p r i v a t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s might have
r e s u l t e d from h i s c o n d u c t . Under such circum-
s t a n c e s , t h e c o m p l a i n t must be d i s m i s s e d . ' "

See a l s o : H a r r i v . I s a a c , 1 1 Mont. 1 5 2 , 107 P.2d 137; Wheeler
1

v . Moe, 163 Mont. 1 5 4 , 515 P.2d 679, 30 St.Rep. 985; Meinecke v .

McFarland, 122 Mont. 515, 206 P.2d 1 0 1 2 .

Here, t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t was p r e p a r e d and o b t a i n e d by

t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ; s e r v i c e w a s n o t made by r e s p o n d e n t s though

t h e y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e r a i d ; t h e y were n o t i n v o l v e d i n a p p e l l a n t s '

a r r e s t a l t h o u g h r e s p o n d e n t Anderson, a s s h e r i f f , was s t a t u t o r i l y
bound t o h o l d a p p e l l a n t s i n j a i l u n t i l t h e y made bond.
There b e i n g no g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t w e
f i n d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d summary judgment.
Justices