No. 14747
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980
STATE OF MONTANA,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
-vs-
RONALD LEE BASSETT,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Yellowstone,
The Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Allen Beck argued, Billings, Montana
For Respondent :
Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana
Richard Larson argued, Assistant Attorney General,
Helena, Montana
Harold Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana
James Walen argued, Deputy County Attorney, Billings,
Montana
Submitted:
~ecided: JUL 2 5 1980
Filed:
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 of
t h e Court.
c his i s a n a p p e a l from d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n s of two
c o u n t s of c r i m i n a l s a l e of dangerous d r u g s .
Defendant Ronald Lee B a s s e t t was c h a r g e d by i n f o r m a t i o n
f i l e d d i r e c t l y i n t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , on
J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1979, w i t h two c o u n t s of s e l l i n g c o c a i n e , i n
v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n s 45-9-101 and 50-32-101 t h r o u g h 50-32-
313, MCA, and o n e c o u n t of p o s s e s s i o n of m a r i j u a n a i n v i o l a t i o n
of s e c t i o n s 45-9-102 and 50-32-101 t h r o u g h 50-32-313, MCA.
The c h a r g e s stemmed from a wide-ranging i n v e s t i g a t i o n of
i l l e g a l d r u g a c t i v i t y i n t h e B i l l i n g s , Montana, a r e a i n
which a Big Horn Deputy S h e r i f f , Atone R. (Tony) C a r r i e r w a s
"on l o a n " t o Yellowstone County a u t h o r i t i e s working a s a n
undercover i n v e s t i g a t o r . I n the investigation, the authori-
t i e s r o u t i n e l y made u s e of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e and
monitoring devices. C a r r i e r was o u t f i t t e d w i t h a c o n c e a l e d
microphone and a t r a n s m i t t i n g d e v i c e commonly known a s a
body m o n i t o r .
Carrier met w i t h d e f e n d a n t on a t l e a s t s i x o c c a s i o n s .
On October 1 7 , 1978, C a r r i e r was i n t r o d u c e d t o d e f e n d a n t by
R u s s e l l Bender. T h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n was made a t B e n d e r ' s
residence. C a r r i e r had purchased a n a u t o m o b i l e from Bender
and had a l s o made a r r a n g e m e n t s t o buy a q u a n t i t y of c o c a i n e
a t Bender's residence. O u t s i d e t h e r e s i d e n c e , Bender and
d e f e n d a n t c a r r i e d on a b r i e f c o n v e r s a t i o n which C a r r i e r
could n o t overhear. A f t e r C a r r i e r gave Bender $ 8 0 i n c a s h ,
d e f e n d a n t handed Bender a s m a l l p a c k e t . The t h r e e men
proceeded i n t o B e n d e r ' s l i v i n g q u a r t e r s , where d e f e n d a n t
brought a mirror. Bender p l a c e d a p o r t i o n of t h e s u b s t a n c e
from t h e p a c k e t on t h e m i r r o r and i n h a l e d i t . carrier
s u b s e q u e n t l y l e f t , t a k i n g t h e p a c k e t w i t h him.
C a r r i e r proceeded t o t h e Yellowstone County Courthouse
where he t u r n e d t h e p a c k e t o v e r t o a d e t e c t i v e w i t h t h e
county's Criminal I n v e s t i g a t i o n Division ( C . I . D . ) . The
s u b s t a n c e was f i e l d t e s t e d a t t h e c o u r t h o u s e and showed
p o s i t i v e f o r cocaine. Subsequent a n a l y s i s a t t h e s t a t e
crime l a b o r a t o r y confirmed t h e s u b s t a n c e p u r c h a s e d w a s
cocaine.
C a r r i e r met w i t h d e f e n d a n t on October 1 8 , 1978, and
a g a i n on October 2 6 , 1978. A f o u r t h m e e t i n g took p l a c e on
November 3 , 1978, a t which t i m e d e f e n d a n t informed C a r r i e r
t h a t he c o u l d g e t a q u a r t e r ounce of c o c a i n e f o r $ 6 0 0 .
Arrangements were made f o r t h e s a l e . On November 7, 1978,
C a r r i e r purchased f i v e p a c k e t s of c o c a i n e a t d e f e n d a n t ' s
residence. T h i s p u r c h a s e was made from d e f e n d a n t . Carrier
d e l i v e r e d t h e packets t o t h e C.I.D. o f f i c e s , and s u b s e q u e n t
a n a l y s i s o f t h e s t a t e crime l a b o r a t o r y confirmed t h a t t h e
packets contained cocaine. C a r r i e r made a f i n a l c o n t a c t
w i t h d e f e n d a n t on December 4 , 1978.
During e a c h of t h e c o n t a c t s , C a r r i e r was o u t f i t t e d w i t h
a c o n c e a l e d microphone and body m o n i t o r . Carrier freely
c o n s e n t e d t o t h e placement and t h e u s e o f t h e s e d e v i c e s .
According t o t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d a t a s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g ,
t h e d e v i c e s w e r e used t o p r o v i d e p r o t e c t i o n f o r C a r r i e r and
t o e n a b l e o f f i c e r s t o p r e p a r e a c c u r a t e r e p o r t s of t h e e v e n t s .
Court o r d e r s permitting t h e monitoring w e r e obtained f o r
C a r r i e r ' s l a s t t h r e e contacts with defendant b u t n o t f o r t h e
f i r s t three.
After pleading n o t g u i l t y t o t h e charges, defendant
f i l e d v a r i o u s p r e t r i a l m o t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g a "motion t o
s u p p r e s s based on i l l e g a l e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e and/or
eavesdropping." A h e a r i n g on d e f e n d a n t ' s motions was con-
ducted. The t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d t h a t t h e t a p e r e c o r d e d con-
v e r s a t i o n s monitored w i t h o u t p r i o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n c o u l d n o t
be admitted i n t o evidence. However, t h e c o u r t d e n i e d
s u p p r e s s i o n of t h e t a p e r e c o r d i n g s o b t a i n e d w i t h p r i o r j u d i -
cial authorization. The c o u r t a l s o g r a n t e d a n u n r e l a t e d
motion t o s u p p r e s s based upon an u n l a w f u l s e a r c h w a r r a n t ,
and t h a t r u l i n g l e d t o a d i s m i s s a l of Count I11 of t h e
i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e misdemeanor p o s s e s s i o n c h a r g e .
A t t r i a l t h e S t a t e i n t r o d u c e d and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ad-
m i t t e d t a p e r e c o r d i n g s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n s on November 3, 1978,
and November 7, 1978. N a t t e m p t w a s made t o i n t r o d u c e any
o
other tape recordings a t t r i a l . The S t a t e a l s o i n t r o d u c e d
i n t o e v i d e n c e d r u g s s e i z e d i n t h e s a l e t r a n s a c t i o n s of
October 17 and November 7. The j u r y r e t u r n e d g u i l t y v e r -
d i c t s as t o t h e two r e m a i n i n g c o u n t s . The t r i a l c o u r t
d e s i g n a t e d d e f e n d a n t a dangerous o f f e n d e r and imposed a
twenty-five year sentence.
Defendant p r e s e n t s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w by
t h i s Court:
1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d i n t o
e v i d e n c e t a p e r e c o r d i n g s of c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t were m o n i t o r e d
w i t h t h e c o n s e n t of one of t h e c o n v e r s a n t s and p r i o r j u d i c i a l
authorization.
2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d i n t o
e v i d e n c e t h e d r u g s t h a t were s o l d t o t h e undercover o p e r a -
t i v e and t h e r e a f t e r d e l i v e r e d by him t o t h e a u t h o r i t i e s .
3. Whether t h e r e was "governmental i m p r o p r i e t y " i n
t h i s c a s e t h a t would r e q u i r e r e v e r s a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c -
tion.
Defendant c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d d u r i n g
t h e u n a u t h o r i z e d e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e on October 1 7 , 18
and 26, 1978, w a s i n f a c t used t o s u p p o r t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n
f o r t h e November 3, 1978, a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o c o n d u c t e l e c -
tronic surveillance. I n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e Novem-
b e r 3, 1978, a u t h o r i z e d m o n i t o r i n g was i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l
i n t h e form of b o t h t a p e r e c o r d i n g s a s w e l l a s t r a n s c r i p t s
thereof. A s a r e s u l t of t h e i n i t i a l i l l e g a l r e c o r d i n g and
t h e c o u r t ' s r e l i a n c e thereon, defendant contends a l l subse-
q u e n t a p p l i c a t i o n s t o m o n i t o r and a l l e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d
therefrom w e r e t a i n t e d . W e disagree.
Applying t h e p r i n c i p l e s announced i n S t a t e v . Hanley
(1980) I - Mont. , 608 P.2d 1 0 4 , 37 St.Rep. 427, and
e a r l i e r c a s e s , t o t h e f a c t s of t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , i t i s c l e a r
t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e v i d e n t i a r y r u l i n g s were c o r r e c t .
W a r r a n t l e s s m o n i t o r i n g o c c u r r e d October 1 7 , 1 8 and 26.
I n e a c h i n s t a n c e C a r r i e r met w i t h d e f e n d a n t a t d e f e n d a n t ' s
residence. The t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s
motion t o s u p p r e s s t h e r e c o r d i n g s made of c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t
w e r e m o n i t o r e d on t h e s e o c c a s i o n s . This Court held i n S t a t e
v . Brackman ( 1 9 7 8 ) , ,
Mont. - 582 P.2d 1216, 1222, 35
St.Rep. 1103, t h a t t a p e r e c o r d i n g s and t r a n s c r i p t s o b t a i n e d
t h r o u g h t h e u s e of a n u n a u t h o r i z e d e l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r i n g
d e v i c e w e r e p r o p e r l y s u p p r e s s e d on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g r o u n d s .
The B i l l i n g s c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s o b t a i n e d j u d i c i a l
a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r t h e m o n i t o r i n g t h a t o c c u r r e d November 3,
November 7, and December 4 , 1978. The t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y
a d m i t t e d t h e t a p e r e c o r d i n g s of t h e November 3 and November
7 conversations. The r e c o r d i n g s of c o n v e r s a t i o n s m o n i t o r e d
w i t h t h e c o n s e n t of one of t h e c o n v e r s a n t s and w i t h j u d i c i a l
a u t h o r i t y a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o suppression. See S t a t e v .
Hanley, s u p r a . Further, a s we noted i n S t a t e v. ~ r u b a k e r
(1979) - Mont. , 602 P.2d 974, 36 St.Rep. 1915, t a p e
r e c o r d e d s t a t e m e n t s may be c o n s i d e r e d d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o r
c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e and a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e same t e s t s f o r
a d m i s s i b i l i t y a s t h e d i r e c t e v i d e n c e of e y e w i t n e s s e s o r t h e
t e s t i m o n y of w i t n e s s e s t o o r a l s t a t e m e n t s . The q u e s t i o n of
a d m i s s i b i l i t y of t h i s k i n d of e v i d e n c e i s a matter f o r t h e
sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l judge.
Defendant s p e c i f i c a l l y a s s e r t s t h a t a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r
t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o c o n d u c t e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e which
i s based upon p r i o r i l l e g a l e a v e s d r o p p i n g may n o t s u s t a i n a
subsequent lawful a p p l i c a t i o n . Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e
l a w enforcement o f f i c i a l s d i r e c t l y r e l i e d upon such informa-
t i o n i n making a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n o r d e r .
The c o n v e r s a t i o n s were r e c o r d e d w i t h o u t d e f e n d a n t ' s knowl-
edge. A l l e v i d e n c e , t h e r e f o r e , used a g a i n s t him w a s t a i n t e d
and s h o u l d have been s u p p r e s s e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e d o c t r i n e of
" t h e f r u i t s of t h e p o i s o n o u s t r e e . "
W f i n d t h i s f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n very similar t o t h a t
e
found i n Hanley. I n Hanley, C a r r i e r r e c o r d e d a t e l e p h o n e
c o n v e r s a t i o n i n which t h e d e f e n d a n t had p a r t i c i p a t e d . No
p r i o r j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r t h a t r e c o r d i n g had been
sought o r received. C a r r i e r l e a r n e d of an impending d r u g
transaction during t h i s conversation. Argument was made
t h a t because t h e conversation w a s recorded without p r i o r
a u t h o r i z a t i o n , a l l s u b s e q u e n t l y g a t h e r e d i n f o r m a t i o n and
evidence w a s t a i n t e d . T h i s C o u r t r e j e c t e d t h a t argument and
r u l e d t h a t t h e u n a u t h o r i z e d r e c o r d i n g s of t h e t e l e p h o n e
c o n v e r s a t i o n s were " w h o l l y i n c i d e n t a l t o and d i d n o t a f f e c t
t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l . " 608 P.2d
a t 108.
I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , C a r r i e r , w h i l e wearing a body
m o n i t o r , conversed w i t h d e f e n d a n t and t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n was
recorded. C a r r i e r had n o t s o u g h t o r r e c e i v e d p r i o r a u t h o r i -
zation f o r t h a t recording.
Here, a s i n Hanley, C a r r i e r ' s own p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n s
of t h e i n i t i a l conversations supplied adequate independent
i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p o r t i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r e l e c t r o n i c moni-
toring authorization. The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e o r d e r a u t h o r i -
z i n g t h e m o n i t o r i n g r e s u l t e d i n t a p e r e c o r d i n g s which w e r e
admitted a t t r i a l . T h i s a p p l i c a t i o n makes no r e f e r e n c e t o
t h e f a c t t h a t t h e e a r l i e r c o n v e r s a t i o n s w e r e monitored o r
recorded. The a p p l i c a t i o n r e c i t e s o n l y t h e f a c t s C a r r i e r
reported during h i s investigation. There i s no more d e r i -
v a t i v e t a i n t i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h a n t h e r e was i n Hanley.
The n e x t i s s u e r a i s e d by d e f e n d a n t i s t h a t t h e d r u g s
introduced i n t o evidence w e r e not properly admitted. Defen-
d a n t c l a i m s t h a t a s a r e s u l t of t h e i n i t i a l t h r e e i n c i d e n t s
of u n a u t h o r i z e d e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , and t h e u s e t h e r e o f
t o o b t a i n an order t o continue e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , a l l
c o n t r a b a n d s e i z e d w h i l e p r o c e e d i n g under s u c h o r d e r s h o u l d
have been s u p p r e s s e d .
The d r u g s i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l had been bought from
d e f e n d a n t by Carrier on two occasions--October 1 7 and Novem-
b e r 7. Consentual p a r t i c i p a n t monitoring occurred each
time. The m o n i t o r i n g of November 7 was a u t h o r i z e d by c o u r t
o r d e r and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e d r u g s s e i z e d were n o t t a i n t e d by
illegal activity.
The c o n s e n t u a l p a r t i c i p a n t m o n i t o r i n g t h a t o c c u r r e d
October 1 7 , 1978, w a s n o t a u t h o r i z e d by c o u r t o r d e r . This
f a c t d o e s n o t a f f e c t t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of t h e d r u g s t h a t
d e f e n d a n t s o l d t h a t day. Those d r u g s w e r e n o t d e r i v e d from
and do n o t r e p r e s e n t " f r u i t s ' of t h e u n a u t h o r i z e d m o n i t o r i n g .
T h i s C o u r t a d d r e s s e d p r e c i s e l y t h i s q u e s t i o n i n Hanley
i n language t h a t i s a s a p p l i c a b l e i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e a s i t
w a s there:
"The d r u g s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e d i d n o t de-
r i v e from t h e m o n i t o r i n g and r e c o r d i n g t h a t
occurred. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e law
enforcement o f f i c i a l s obtained t h e drugs through
a n i n f o r m a n t , n o t t h r o u g h m o n i t o r i n g and r e c o r d -
i n g . The m o n i t o r i n g and r e c o r d i n g w e r e i n c i -
d e n t a l t o , n o t t h e c a u s e o f , t h e ' s e i z u r e of t h e
drugs.' The i n f o r m a n t w a s t h e i n d e p e n d e n t s o u r c e
of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e t r a n s a c t i o n
of t h e d r u g s t h e m s e l v e s , and t h e f a c t t h a t t h e
m o n i t o r i n g and r e c o r d i n g o c c u r r e d d o e s n o t a f f e c t
t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of t h e e v i d e n c e . In a recent
c a s e , S t a t e v. R i b e r a ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. I
597 P.2d 1164, 1169, 36 ~t.~e~.92, 1298-99,
t h i s C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d and d i s c u s s e d t h e q u e s t i o n
t h a t must be answered when a n i l l e g a l s e i z u r e
i s a l l e g e d - - t h a t i s , whether t h e i n i t i a l i l l e -
g a l i t y w a s a c a u s e i n f a c t o f t h e d i s c o v e r y of
t h e evidence. I n t h a t c a s e , w e c i t e d Wong Sun
v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 371 U.S. 471, 8 3 S.Ct.
407, 9 L.Ed.2d 4 4 1 . Here t h e m o n i t o r i n g and
r e c o r d i n g was n o t a c a u s e o f t h e d i s c o v e r y of t h e
evidence; t h e r e f o r e , t h e exclusionary r u l e does
n o t a p p l y even i f t h e m o n i t o r i n g and r e c o r d i n g
were t o be deemed u n l a w f u l . The d r u g s w e r e
p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . " State
v. Hanley, s u p r a , 608 P.2d a t 110, 37 St.Rep.
a t 435.
The f i n a l i s s u e p r e s e n t e d i s whether t h e r e w a s govern-
m e n t a l i m p r o p r i e t y i n t h i s c a s e r e q u i r i n g r e v e r s a l of d e f e n -
d a n t ' s conviction.
Defendant a r g u e s t h a t C a r r i e r n e v e r m e t t h e s t a t u t o r y
o r l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s t o be r e g a r d e d a s a d e p u t y s h e r i f f .
Consequently, a c c o r d i n g t o d e f e n d a n t , C a r r i e r must be t r e a t e d
by t h i s C o u r t a s a p a i d i n f o r m a n t f o r h i s p a r t i n t h e i n v e s -
tigation. I f t h e C o u r t a c c e p t s t h i s argument, it i s f u r t h e r
argued t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h C a r r i e r ' s reli-
a b i l i t y a s a n i n f o r m a n t a s r e q u i r e d by law, and t h e r e f o r e ,
d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r i s s u a n c e of a n o r d e r .
T o r e s o l v e t h i s i s s u e w e look t o t h e n a t u r e of t h e
a c t i v i t y i n which C a r r i e r was i n v o l v e d . Criminal drug
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a r e n o t t h e t r a d i t i o n a l l a w enforcement
a c t i v i t i e s conducted r o u t i n e l y by p o l i c e a u t h o r i t i e s . In
many i n s t a n c e s , t h i s t y p e of i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e q u i r e s non-
t r a d i t i o n a l means w i t h i n t h e c o n f i n e s of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l
requirements. C a r r i e r was engaged i n a s p e c i a l a s s i g n m e n t .
H i s p o s i t i o n a s a n undercover a g e n t was temporary. He was
a t t e m p t i n g t o p e n e t r a t e t h e c i r c l e s of d r u g d e a l i n g i n t h e
community of B i l l i n g s . Undercover a c t i v i t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y i n
t h e n a r c o t i c s f i e l d , r e q u i r e s s e c r e c y and i n t e g r i t y of t h e
a g e n t i n t h e e y e s of d e a l e r s . The s l i g h t e s t h i n t of p o l i c e
a c t i v i t y would immediately t e r m i n a t e t h e c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i -
g a t i o n and p o s s i b l y p l a c e t h e l i v e s of t h e a g e n t and o t h e r
o f f i c e r s i n danger.
Montana law p r o v i d e s t h a t numerous r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e t o
be met b e f o r e a n i n d i v i d u a l can q u a l i f y as a d e p u t y s h e r i f f .
S e c t i o n 7-32-301, MCA. T h i s s t a t u t e s p e a k s t o law e n f o r c e -
ment o f f i c i a l s who a r e on a permanent b a s i s . To r e q u i r e a l l
l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s t o be f u l l y c l o t h e d w i t h t h e s e
s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s i n a l l i n s t a n c e s would s e r i o u s l y
j e o p a r d i z e t h e s u c c e s s of law e n f o r c e m e n t i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s
a s a r e presented here. T h i s s t a t u t e i s a r e s t r i c t i o n on a
s h e r i f f ' s power o f appointment.
The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t C a r r i e r had worked a s a
d e p u t y s h e r i f f on numerous p r i o r o c c a s i o n s . H e worked i n
G a l l a t i n County a s a n undercover a g e n t f o r t h e s h e r i f f ' s
o f f i c e f o r s e v e r a l months. L a t e r he was h i r e d by t h e s h e r i f f
of Big Horn County and worked a s a d e p u t y s h e r i f f , and
f i n a l l y was l e n t t o t h e Yellowstone County o f f i c i a l s t o work
i n t h i s c a s e a s a deputy s h e r i f f . Carrier's prior acti-
v i t i e s i n t h e G a l l a t i n and Big Horn o f f i c e s d e m o n s t r a t e his
w o r t h i n e s s a s a l a w enforcement o f f i c i a l . This Court f i n d s
t h e t e s t i m o n y of C a r r i e r ' s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , e x p e r i e n c e and
a c t i v i t i e s s u f f i c i e n t t o meet t h e s t a t u s of law e n f o r c e m e n t
official.
A s w e noted i n an earlier decision, ". . . C a r r i e r was
a p u b l i c employee, i f n o t a p u b l i c o f f i c i a l . . ." S t a t e v .
Hanley, 608 P.2d a t 1 1
1 . H i s o f f i c i a l d u t y i n v o l v e d main-
t a i n i n g c o n t a c t w i t h persons involved i n t h e drug scene.
The Yellowstone County C . I . D . o f f i c e r s acted reasonably,
taking t h e s e f a c t o r s i n t o account, i n s t a t i n g t h a t C a r r i e r
was a d e p u t y s h e r i f f when a p p l y i n g f o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r
e l e c t r o n i c monitoring. Applications f o r a search warrant
a r e t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d i n a commonsense f a s h i o n . S t a t e v.
White ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 225 Kan. 87, 587 P.2d 1259. I n t h e common-
s e n s e u n d e r s t a n d i n g , C a r r i e r was a Big Horn County d e p u t y
s h e r i f f even though h e may n o t have m e t a l l t h e t e c h n i c a l
statutory qualifications.
I n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a n o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g t h e u s e of
e l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r i n g d e v i c e , D e t e c t i v e O r v a l Hendrickson
r e l i e d on t h e d e t a i l e d o b s e r v a t i o n s of a f e l l o w d e p u t y
o f f i c e r , Tony C a r r i e r . These o b s e r v a t i o n s i n c l u d e d p r i o r
d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n s between d e f e n d a n t and Bender and i n d i c a -
t i o n s t h a t a d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n may o c c u r between h i m s e l f and
defendant. I n t h e s e circumstances, t h e "fellow o f f i c e r "
r u l e applies. A s t h e Supreme C o u r t n o t e d i n U n i t e d S t a t e s
v. V e n t r e s c a ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 380 U.S. 102, 111, 85 S.Ct. 741, 1 3
L.Ed.2d 684, " [ o l b s e r v a t i o n s of a f e l l o w o f f i c e r of t h e
government engaged i n a common i n v e s t i g a t i o n a r e p l a i n l y a
r e l i a b l e b a s i s f o r a w a r r a n t a p p l i e d f o r by one of t h e i r
number." C a r r i e r was "one of t h e i r number." The C . I . D .
o f f i c e r s , t h e r e f o r e , c o u l d r e l y on h i s p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a -
t i o n s , a s c o u l d t h e judge r e v i e w i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . See
U n i t e d S t a t e s v. McCormick ( 7 t h C i r . 1 9 6 2 ) , 309 F.2d 367,
372; Weise v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 5 8 ) , 251 ~ . 2 d867,
8 6 8.
The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
W e concur:
S d , j . & <
.,
.
-
I
:,- .
Justices i
i