No. 14644
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O MXPANA
F
1979
STATE O MXTANA,
F
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs-
JULIAN RIBERA,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal £ram: D i s t r i c t Court of the W l f t h Judicial D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable B. W. Thamas, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Wrrison, EXtien and Barron, Havre, Mntana
Kathleen H. Richardson argued, Hawe, Wntana
For Respondent :
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Wntana
Chris D. - e
tn argued, Assistant Attorney General,
Helena, Wntana
Ronald Smith, County Attorney, argued, Havre, mntana
Sdxdtted: June 4, 1979
Filed: yJ!--
-
.-
-
-, . , , 2
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 O p i n i o n o f
t h e Court.
D e f e n d a n t , J u l i a n R i b e r a , J r . , a p p e a l s from h i s c o n v i c -
t i o n o f o n e c o u n t of p o s s e s s i o n of d a n g e r o u s d r u g s and o n e
c o u n t of attempted sale o f dangerous d r u g s following a
nonjury t r i a l i n t h e 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 , H i l l County, t h e Honorable B. W. Thomas p r e s i d i n g .
On F e b r u a r y 2 4 , 1978, James Owens, a s s i s t a n t p r i n c i p a l
o f Havre High S c h o o l , r e c e i v e d a n o t e from h i s s e c r e t a r y
which s h e had j u s t r e c e i v e d from a s t u d e n t . The s t u d e n t had
w r i t t e n t h e following d e s c r i p t i o n along with t h e l a s t four
d i g i t s of a l i c e n s e number on t h e p a p e r :
" s h o r t dark-skinned b l u e c o a t
shoulder l e n g t h h a i r beard & mustache.
peachy d a r k .
3759"
The s e c r e t a r y w r o t e t h e f o l l o w i n g u n d e r t h e s t u d e n t ' s de-
scription:
"Mr. Owens--
A s t u d e n t j u s t i n f o r m e d m e t h a t h e saw a
man t r y i n g t o s e l l d r u g s t o k i d s i n t h e w e s t
parking l o t .
B.P."
Owens went t o t h e doorway o f t h e w e s t f o y e r o f t h e s c h o o l
where h e c o u l d see t h e p a r k i n g l o t . H e saw a man who f i t
t h e d e s c r i p t i o n on t h e n o t e t a l k i n g t o some s t u d e n t s . He
a l s o saw a c a r i n t h e p a r k i n g l o t . The l a s t f o u r d i g i t s o f
t h e l i c e n s e matched t h o s e on t h e n o t e .
Owens r e t u r n e d t o h i s o f f i c e and c a l l e d t h e Havre
P o l i c e Department. H e identified himself, reported the
i n c i d e n t , and a s k e d t h a t p o l i c e b e s e n t t o t h e s c h o o l .
A f t e r r e p o r t i n g t h e i n c i d e n t he r e t u r n e d t o t h e w e s t f o y e r
of t h e b u i l d i n g and c o n t i n u e d t o w a t c h .
After a s h o r t t i m e t h e suspect g o t i n t o t h e c a r along
w i t h two companions, and t h e y d r o v e away. Owens a g a i n
c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e t o t e l l them t h e s u s p e c t w a s l e a v i n g i n a
c a r w i t h two o t h e r s . T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was r e l a y e d by r a d i o
t o t h e two o f f i c e r s who were r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e c a l l .
The o f f i c e r s met t h e c a r a l o n g t h e way and s t o p p e d i t .
A pat-down s e a r c h w a s made of d e f e n d a n t and f i v e "Baggies"
of what l a t e r proved t o b e m a r i j u a n a were found i n a p o c k e t
of h i s coat. The t h r e e were t a k e n t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n
w h i l e one of t h e o f f i c e r s f o l l o w e d i n t h e i r c a r .
A t t h e s t a t i o n t h e p o l i c e r e c e i v e d t h e o r a l and w r i t t e n
c o n s e n t of t h e owner and d r i v e r o f t h e c a r , Kenneth B e r g e r ,
t o search h i s car. The s u b s e q u e n t s e a r c h y i e l d e d a n a d d i -
t i o n a l f i v e Baggies of m a r i j u a n a which had been p l a c e d i n a
brown p a p e r bag i n t h e b a c k s e a t .
D e f e n d a n t ' s a r r e s t and t h e s u b s e q u e n t s e a r c h w e r e
accomplished w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t . H e f i l e d a motion t o sup-
p r e s s a s e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l b o t h t h e m a r i j u a n a s e i z e d from
h i s c o a t p o c k e t s and t h a t s e i z e d from t h e b a c k s e a t of
Berger's car. Following a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g , t h e c o u r t
e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law and a n o r d e r
d e n y i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s motion.
Defendant renewed h i s motion t o s u p p r e s s a t t r i a l and
a l s o moved f o r a n a c q u i t t a l on Count I1 c h a r g i n g him w i t h
attempted s a l e . T h i s l a t t e r motion, which was a l s o d e n i e d ,
a l l e g e d t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d by t h e S t a t e was i n s u f -
f i c i e n t t o show a d i r e c t u n e q u i v o c a l a c t committed by d e f e n -
d a n t toward t h e commission of a s a l e . The S t a t e had p r e -
sented t h r e e high school students a s witnesses. Kathy
Barlow t e s t i f i e d : "He a s k e d u s i f w e wanted t o buy a bag."
She f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t a l t h o u g h d e f e n d a n t d i d n o t ex-
p l a i n h i s meaning, s h e u n d e r s t o o d him t o mean a bag of
marijuana. H e d i d n o t show h e r t h e m a r i j u a n a . The t e s t i -
mony of t h e o t h e r h i g h s c h o o l s t u d e n t s was s u b s t a n t i a l l y
similar. No o n e t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y saw a n y m a r i j u a n a a t
t h e school.
D e f e n d a n t p r e s e n t s t h r e e i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w which c a n b e
s t a t e d a s follows:
1. Whether t h e a r r e s t o f d e f e n d a n t w a s s u p p o r t e d by
probable cause?
2. Whether t h e s u b s e q u e n t l y s e i z e d e v i d e n c e w a s t h e
f r u i t of an i l l e g a l a r r e s t ?
3. Whether d e f e n d a n t committed a d i r e c t u n e q u i v o c a l
a c t s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t h i s c o n v i c t i o n of t h e crime of
attempted s a l e of dangerous drugs?
PROBABLE CAUSE
D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s d i d n o t have p r o b a -
b l e c a u s e t o s t o p t h e a u t o m o b i l e i n which d e f e n d a n t was
r i d i n g b e c a u s e when Owens c a l l e d t h e p o l i c e , h e d i d n o t
i d e n t i f y t h e s o u r c e of h i s information and t h e d i s p a t c h e r
a s k e d him no q u e s t i o n s .
The S t a t e r e s p o n d s by a r g u i n g t h a t t h e p o l i c e w e r e
informed of t h e "underlying circumstances" g i v i n g r i s e t o
Owens' t i p t o a n e x t e n t s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g o f
probable cause.
Both p a r t i e s c i t e Owens' t e s t i m o n y from t h e t r a n s c r i p t
of t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n h e g a v e
t h e police during h i s f i r s t c a l l :
" I s a i d I h a v e i n f o r m a t i o n from o n e o f my s t u d e n t s
t h a t h e was a p p r o a c h e d i n t h e w e s t p a r k i n g l o t t o
buy d r u g s . H e r e i s t h e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e i n d i -
v i d u a l . H e r e i s t h e l i c e n s e number o f t h e c a r .
I j u s t saw t h i s i n d i v i d u a l o u t t h e r e . Ask you t o
g e t down h e r e a s f a s t as p o s s i b l e . "
O f f i c e r F i s h e r , t h e d i s p a t c h e r who r e c e i v e d t h e c a l l , g a v e
somewhat less e x t e n s i v e t e s t i m o n y r e g a r d i n g t h i s same ex-
change:
"Q. And c a n you s t a t e what M r . Owens s a i d t o you?
A. Yes. H e t o l d me t h a t t h e r e w a s a n o l d e r model
c a r , w h i t e , s i t t i n g i n t h e w e s t p a r k i n g l o t of t h e
high school s e l l i n g drugs t o kids.
"Q. Did you a s k M r . Owens any q u e s t i o n s ? A. No.
He had t h e l i c e n s e number and h e s a i d h e d i d . 12-
3759. I g a v e t h a t t o them and t h e y l e f t .
"Q. And h e g a v e you a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e i n d i -
vidual? A. Yes. The one t h a t w a s s e l l i n g t h e
d r u g s was wearing a b l u e j a c k e t . Long d a r k h a i r .
Dark complected.
"Q. And d i d h e a d v i s e you t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l was
s e l l i n g d r u g s t o him? A. No. To some k i d s .
"Q. And-i-h e g i v e any i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t , - -
- d d t o ad-
v i s e you - - - e knew t h a t ? A.
o f how h - - No."
- (Emphasis
added. )
I n c l u d e d i n F i n d i n g of F a c t No. 1 i s t h e f o l l o w i n g :
"He t h e n r e t u r n e d t o h i s o f f i c e and c a l l e d t h e
Havre P o l i c e Department. He i d e n t i f i e d h i m s e l f ,
r e p o r t e d t h e i n c i d e n t and asked t h a t p o l i c e b e
s e n t t o t h e s c h o o l . He t h e n r e t u r n e d t o t h e
foyer . . ."
F i n d i n g of F a c t No. 6 i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g :
"6. A t t h e t i m e t h e Berger c a r was s t o p p e d by o f -
f i c e r s Brown and Harada, p e r s o n n e l of t h e Havre
P o l i c e Department p o s s e s s e d t h e f o l l o w i n g informa-
tion:
" ( c ) . Owens' r e p o r t was based on i n f o r m a t i o n which
h e had r e c e i v e d from a s t u d e n t . "
S e c t i o n 95-701, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 46-5-101 MCA, p r o v i d e s
i n pertinent part that:
"A s e a r c h of a p e r s o n , o b j e c t o r p l a c e may be made
and i n s t r u m e n t s , a r t i c l e s , o r t h i n g s may be s e i z e d
i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s c h a p t e r
when t h e s e a r c h i s made:
"(a) A s a n i n c i d e n t t o a l a w f u l a r r e s t . "
I f t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s d i d n o t have p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o
s t o p t h e a u t o m o b i l e , no e v i d e n c e d i s c o v e r e d a s a r e s u l t of a
s e a r c h of d e f e n d a n t c a n b e used t o j u s t i f y t h e a r r e s t .
S t a t e v . Lahr ( 1 9 7 7 ) , Mont. , 560 P.2d 527, 34
I n S t a t e e x r e l . Townsend v . D i s t . C o u r t ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 168
Mont. 357, 360-61, 543 P.2d 193, 195, t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d :
" I t cannot be disputed t h a t hearsay information
may b e c o n s i d e r e d t o e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e c a u s e .
[Citations omitted.] But when h e a r s a y informa-
t i o n forms t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a f i n d i n g of
p r o b a b l e c a u s e and t h e i s s u a n c e of a s e a r c h war-
r a n t , t h e two-pronged t e s t s e t o u t i n A g u i l a r v .
Texas, 378 U . S . 108, 1 1 4 , 84 S.Ct. 1509, 1514,
1 2 L.Ed.2d 723, must b e a p p l i e d and s a t i s f i e d :
II 1
... t h e m a g i s t r a t e must b e i n f o r m e d o f some
o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s from which t h e
i n f o r m a n t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e n a r c o t i c s w e r e where
h e c l a i m e d t h e y were, and some o f t h e u n d e r l y i n g
c i r c u m s t a n c e s from which t h e o f f i c e r c o n c l u d e d
t h a t t h e i n f o r m a n t , whose i d e n t i t y need n o t b e
d i s c l o s e d , [ c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d ] was " c r e d i b l e " o r
h i s information "reliable.""'
The argument i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e c e n t e r s on t h e f i r s t p r o n g
of t h i s t e s t : w h e t h e r t h e o f f i c e r s who a r r e s t e d d e f e n d a n t
were " i n f o r m e d o f some of t h e u n d e r l y i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s from
which t h e i n f o r m a n t c o n c l u d e d [ t h a t d e f e n d a n t was s e l l i n g
drugs t o students]." A s previously outlined, t h e testimony
v a r i e s on t h i s p o i n t .
Our r e v i e w o f t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e d o e s n o t e s t a b -
l i s h a sufficient basis f o r finding t h a t defendant's a r r e s t
was s u p p o r t e d by p r o b a b l e c a u s e . The t e s t i m o n y o f t h e
a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r s , a s w e l l a s t h e p o l i c e d i s p a t c h e r , re-
v e a l s t h a t t h e y d i d n o t h a v e s u f f i c i e n t knowledge o f t h e
u n d e r l y i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s of Owens1 t i p t o e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e
cause t o arrest defendant.
I n a s i t u a t i o n where p o l i c e o f f i c e r s e x p e c t t o make a
w a r r a n t l e s s a r r e s t , t h e a r r e s t m u s t b e b a s e d on p r o b a b l e
cause. When t h a t p r o b a b l e c a u s e i s b a s e d o n a t i p , s p r i n g -
i n g from a n i n f o r m a n t ' s p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n , t h e i n f o r -
m a n t ' s r e l i a b i l i t y becomes s i g n i f i c a n t . Where t h e r e l i -
a b i l i t y of t h e informant i s assured, a s i n t h i s case, b u t
where h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s b a s e d on someone e l s e ' s s t a t e m e n t s ,
t h e p o l i c e must make some f u r t h e r i n q u i r y o f t h e i n f o r m a n t
regarding t h e underlying circumstances of h i s conclusion
t h a t i t i s p r o b a b l e t h a t a n o f f e n s e i s b e i n g o r h a s been
cornmi t t e d .
While Owens d i d n o t h a v e t o r e v e a l t o t h e p o l i c e t h e
i d e n t i t y o f t h e s t u d e n t who g a v e him t h e n o t e , t h e p o l i c e
s h o u l d have a s k e d Owens a few q u e s t i o n s s u c h a s w h e t h e r h e
knew t h e s t u d e n t , w h e t h e r t h e s t u d e n t had been p e r s o n a l l y
a p p r o a c h e d by t h e s u s p e c t o r w h e t h e r t h e s t u d e n t had o v e r -
h e a r d a n o f f e r o r a c t u a l l y s e e n any d r u g s .
I n v i e w o f t h e f a c t t h a t Owens p e r s o n a l l y o b s e r v e d no
c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t o f t h e s u s p e c t which c o u l d b e c l a s s i f i e d
a s c r i m i n a l c o n d u c t , t h i s b r i e f i n q u i r y by t h e p o l i c e would
h a v e r e d u c e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g and
s a t i s f i e d c e r t a i n minimum s t a n d a r d s f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g p r o b a -
b l e cause.
Without t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l f a c t s e s t a b l i s h i n g probable
c a u s e t o a r r e s t , t h e D i s t r i c t Court should have suppressed
t h e e v i d e n c e s e i z e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e a r r e s t , t h a t b e i n g
t h e contraband found on d e f e n d a n t ' s person. Mapp v , 0 h i o
( 1 9 6 1 ) , 367 U . S . 643, 655, 8 1 S.Ct. 1684, 1691, 6 L - E d - 2 d
1081, 1090. Defendant's conviction, t h e r e f o r e , i s reversed,
a n d t h e case i s remanded f o r a new t r i a l . W e w i l l address
t h e two r e m a i n i n g i s s u e s , however, f o r t h e b e n e f i t of t h e
D i s t r i c t Court.
SUBSEQUENTLY SEIZED EVIDENCE
D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e m a r i j u a n a s e i z e d from B e r g e r ' s
car s h o u l d have been s u p p r e s s e d u n d e r t h e " f r u i t o f t h e
p o i s o n o u s tree" d o c t r i n e , a s h a v i n g b e e n d i s c o v e r e d as a
r e s u l t of d e f e n d a n t ' s " i l l e g a l " a r r e s t .
The S t a t e a n s w e r s t h i s c o n t e n t i o n w i t h two a r g u m e n t s .
F i r s t , t h e S t a t e contends t h a t defendant has n o t e s t a b l i s h e d
t h a t t h e s e a r c h i n v a d e d d e f e n d a n t ' s F o u r t h Amendment r i g h t s .
Second, t h e S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e s e a r c h of Berger's car
was n o t t h e f r u i t o f a n i l l e g a l a r r e s t w i t h i n t h e meaning o f
Wong Sun v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 371 U.S. 471, 83 S . C t .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t made a s p e c i f i c c o n c l u s i o n o f law
with respect t o t h i s issue:
"7. The s e a r c h o f t h e B e r g e r c a r was l e g a l l y made
p u r s u a n t t o t h e v a l i d c o n s e n t o f t h e owner o f t h e
car. I n any e v e n t , defendant i s w i t h o u t s t a n d i n g
t o challenge t h a t search."
Addressing f i r s t t h e q u e s t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s standing
t o c h a l l e n g e t h e s e a r c h o f B e r g e r ' s c a r , w e f i n d t h a t h e was
without standing t o challenge the search. The S t a t e p l a c e s
g r e a t e m p h a s i s on a r e c e n t U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t c a s e
i n support of t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t defendant l a c k s standing t o
object t o t h i s search.
I n Rakas v . I l l i n o i s ( 1 9 7 8 ) , U . S. , 99 S . C t .
421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387, t h e Supreme C o u r t examined t h e r u l e o f
s t a n d i n g e n u n c i a t e d i n J o n e s v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 0 ) , 362
U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697:
" I n J o n e s , t h e C o u r t s e t f o r t h two a l t e r n a t i v e
holdings: it e s t a b l i s h e d a r u l e of 'automatic'
standing t o contest an allegedly i l l e g a l search
where t h e same p o s s e s s i o n needed t o e s t a b l i s h
s t a n d i n g i s a n e s s e n t i a l element of t h e o f f e n s e
c h a r g e d ; and s e c o n d , i t s t a t e d t h a t ' a n y o n e
l e g i t i m a t e l y o n p r e m i s e s where a s e a r c h o c c u r s
may c h a l l e n g e i t s l e g a l i t y by way o f a m o t i o n
t o suppress.' 362 U.S. a t 264, 267." Rakas,
,
U.S. a t - 99 S.Ct. a t 426, 58 L.Ed.2d
a t 395-96.
Though t h e C o u r t i n Rakas a p p a r e n t l y r e s t r i c t e d t h e a p p l i -
c a t i o n o f t h e second a l t e r n a t i v e h o l d i n g i n J o n e s , i t went
on t o e x p l a i n a t F o o t n o t e No.4 t h a t :
"We have n o t y e t had o c c a s i o n t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r
t h e automatic standing r u l e of Jones survives
o u r d e c i s i o n i n Simmons v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 390
U.S. 377, 88 S . C t . 967, 1 9 L.Ed.2d 1247 ( 1 9 6 8 ) .
S e e Brown v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 411 U.S. 223, 228-
229, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 1568-1569, 36 L.Ed.2d 208
( 1 9 7 3 ) . Such a r u l e i s , of c o u r s e , o n e which
may a l l o w a d e f e n d a n t t o a s s e r t t h e F o u r t h
Amendment r i g h t s o f a n o t h e r . "
I n Brown, 4 1 1 U.S. a t 228, 93 S.Ct. a t 1569, 36 L.Ed.2d at
213, t h e Supreme C o u r t had s t a t e d :
". . . u n d e r t h e Simmons d o c t r i n e t h e d e f e n d a n t
i s permitted t o e s t a b l i s h t h e r e q u i s i t e stand-
i n g - by c l a i m i n g ' p o s s e s s i o n ' o f i n c r i m i n a t i n g
evidence. I f he i s granted s t a n d i n g on t h e
b a s i s o f s u c h e v i d e n c e , he may t h e n n o n e t h e l e s s
p r e s s f o r i t s e x c l u s i o n ; b u t , w h e t h e r h e suc-
ceeds o r f a i l s t o suppress t h e evidence, h i s
t e s t i m o n y on t h a t s c o r e i s n o t d i r e c t l y admis-
s i b l e a g a i n s t him i n t h e t r i a l . Thus, p e t i -
t i o n e r s i n t h i s c a s e could have a s s e r t e d , a t
t h e p r e t r i a l suppression hearing, a possessory
i n t e r e s t i n t h e goods a t K n u c k l e ' s s t o r e w i t h -
o u t any danger of i n c r i m i n a t i n g themselves.
They d i d n o t d o s o .
" B u t i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y f o r u s now t o d e t e r -
mine w h e t h e r o u r d e c i s i o n i n Simmons, s u p r a ,
makes J o n e s ' ' a u t o m a t i c ' s t a n d i n g u n n e c e s s a r y .
W e r e s e r v e t h a t q u e s t i o n f o r a c a s e where p o s -
s e s s i o n a t t h e t i m e of t h e contested search
and s e i z u r e i s ' a n e s s e n t i a l element of t h e o f -
fense . .. charged.'"
W e now d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e s e a r c h o f B e r g e r ' s c a r ,
conducted pursuant t o h i s consent, v i o l a t e d t h e Fourth
Amendment a s t h e " f r u i t o f t h e p o i s o n o u s t r e e " u n d e r Wong
Sun v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 371 U.S. 471, 83 S . C t . 407, 9
L.Ed.2d 441. I n Wong - t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h e
Sun,
"poisonous t r e e " r u l e a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e e v i d e n t i a r y f r u i t s
of unconstitutional a r r e s t s . The C o u r t went o n , t h o u g h , t o
i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e t a i n t o f i n i t i a l i l l e g a l i t y may b e p u r g e d :
" W e need n o t h o l d t h a t a l l e v i d e n c e i s ' f r u i t o f
t h e p o i s o n o u s t r e e ' s i m p l y b e c a u s e i t would n o t
h a v e come t o l i g h t b u t f o r t h e i l l e g a l a c t i o n s
of t h e police. R a t h e r , t h e more a p t q u e s t i o n i n
such a c a s e i s 'whether, g r a n t i n g e s t a b l i s h m e n t
o f t h e p r i m a r y i l l e g a l i t y , t h e e v i d e n c e t o which
i n s t a n t o b j e c t i o n i s made h a s b e e n come a t by
e x p l o i t a t i o n o f t h a t i l l e g a l i t y o r i n s t e a d by
means s u f f i c i e n t l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e t o b e p u r g e d
o f t h e p r i m a r y t a i n t . " Wong - 371 U.S. a t
Sun,
487-88.
Thus, u n d e r Wong Sun, two q u e s t i o n s m u s t b e answered: (1)
Was t h e a r r e s t a c a u s e - i n - f a c t of t h e l a t e r discovery of
e v i d e n c e ; and ( 2 ) i f s o , was t h e r e a n i n t e r v e n i n g c a u s e o r
event s u f f i c i e n t t o a t t e n u a t e t h e t a i n t of t h e i l l e g a l
arrest?
I t i s c l e a r t h a t a showing of " v o l u n t a r i n e s s " on
Berger's p a r t i s not sufficient t o attenuate the t a i n t . See
S c h n e c k l o t h v . Bustamonte ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 412 U.S. 218, 93 S . C t .
2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854. Rather, adopting t h e r a t i o n a l e of
Brown v . I l l i n o i s ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 422 U.S. 590, 598-99, 95 S . C t .
2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416, t h e S t a t e must show t h a t B e r g e r ' s
consent w a s " s u f f i c i e n t l y an a c t of f r e e w i l l t o purge t h e
primary t a i n t . " While t h i s i s a n a d m i t t e d l y heavy b u r d e n ,
t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d of t h e i n s t a n t
c a s e t o f i n d t h a t t h e S t a t e has m e t it.
B e r g e r , t h e p a r t y who g a v e c o n s e n t , t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s
c o n s e n t was v o l u n t a r y a n d u n c o e r c e d . Moreover, B e r g e r
t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e was unaware t h a t a n y d r u g s w e r e i n t h e
c a r and t h a t he t h e r e f o r e had no r e a s o n t o deny c o n s e n t . H e
e x p e c t e d t h e s e a r c h o f h i s car t o e s t a b l i s h h i s i n n o c e n c e
a n d g a v e h i s c o n s e n t w i t h t h a t i n mind. Finally, three
f a c t o r s combine i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t
B e r g e r ' s consent w a s " s u f f i c i e n t l y a n a c t of f r e e w i l l t o
purge t h e t a i n t . " F i r s t , t h e r e i s a n a b s e n c e of any e v i -
d e n c e o f any t h r e a t s , p r o m i s e s , o r c o e r c i o n by p o l i c e o f f i -
cers. Second, t h e r e i s e v i d e n c e t h a t B e r g e r ' s c o n s e n t was
knowing, i n t h a t h e was a d v i s e d o f h i s r i g h t t o r e f u s e t o
g i v e h i s consent. T h i r d , B e r g e r had t h o u g h t h e had e v e r y -
t h i n g t o g a i n from t h e s e a r c h o f h i s c a r s i n c e t o h i s knowl-
e d g e t h e s e a r c h would y i e l d no d r u g s and t h u s advance h i s
ultimate vindication.
OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT
D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t mere c o n v e r s a t i o n i s n o t a d i r e c t
u n e q u i v o c a l a c t d i r e c t e d toward t h e commission of t h e o f -
fense s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n a conviction f o r attempted s a l e
o f dangerous drugs. Furthermore, he argues t h a t an o v e r t
a c t must g o f a r enough toward t h e a c c o m p l i s h m e n t o f t h e
o f f e n s e t o amount t o commencement o f i t s consummation.
S i n c e d e f e n d a n t n e v e r d i s p l a y e d a n y m a r i j u a n a t o any of t h e
t h r e e s t u d e n t s he o f f e r e d t o s e l l a "bag" t o , he argues t h a t
a t no t i m e d i d h e h a v e t h e " a p p a r e n t a b i l i t y " t o c o m p l e t e a
sale.
The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s w e r e more
t h a n mere a c t s o f p r e p a r a t i o n , r a t h e r t h e y w e r e a c t s o f
perpetration. The o n l y t h i n g s t a n d i n g between d e f e n d a n t and
a completed s a l e was h i s i n a b i l i t y t o f i n d a w i l l i n g b u y e r .
S e c t i o n 94-4-103, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 45-4-103
MCA, provides:
"A p e r s o n commits t h e o f f e n s e o f a t t e m p t , when,
w i t h t h e p u r p o s e t o commit a s p e c i f i c o f f e n s e ,
h e d o e s any a c t t o w a r d s t h e commission o f s u c h
offense."
T h i s C o u r t h a s s t a t e d t h a n a n o v e r t a c t "must r e a c h f a r
enough toward t h e accomplishment o f t h e d e s i r e d r e s u l t t o
amount t o t h e commencement o f t h e consummation." I n addi-
t i o n , t h e C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t " t h e r e m u s t b e some a p p r e c i a b l e
f r a g m e n t o f t h e c r i m e committed, and i t must b e i n s u c h
p r o g r e s s t h a t i t w i l l b e consummated u n l e s s i n t e r r u p t e d by
c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n d e p e n d e n t o f t h e w i l l of t h e a t t e m p t e r . "
S t a t e v . R a i n s ( 1 9 1 7 ) , 5 3 Mont. 424, 164 P . 540.
I n t h i s c a s e it i s clear t h a t d e f e n d a n t i n t e n d e d t o
make a s a l e of d r u g s . H e made o f f e r s t o t h r e e s t u d e n t s and
had t h e d r u g s i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n a t t h e t i m e of t h e o f f e r s .
F u r t h e r , t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was t r a v e l i n g
from Chinook t o S i d n e y when t h e s i d e t r i p t o Havre w a s
taken. The e x t r a o r d i n a r y t r i p , a p p r o a c h i n g s t u d e n t s and
making v e r b a l o f f e r s t o s e l l d r u g s a r e s u f f i c i e n t a c t s t o
c o n s t i t u t e t h e crime o f a t t e m p t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e r a t i o n a l e
of S t a t e v . Rains, supra.
The c a s e i s r e v e r s e d and remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o -
ceedings c o n s i s t e n t with t h i s opinion.
W e concur:
~A&J,u@&
Chief J u s t l c e
-
of M r . J u s t i c e Sheehy