STATE v NANOFF
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12221 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1972 T E STATE O M N A A H F OTN, P l a i n t i f f a n d Respondent, -vs - LAWRENCE KAZOR NANOFF, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R. J. Nelson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Berger, Anderson, S i n c l a i r and Murphy, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Arnold A. Berger argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. For Respondent : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana. J. C. Weingartner, Deputy Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana. J. Fred Bourdeau, County Attorney, Great F a l l s , Montana. Michael T. Greely, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Great F a l l s , Montana. Submitted : Decided : September 19, 1972 NOV - 9 1972 Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e e i g h t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Cascade, Defendant, Lawrence Kazor Nanoff, was c o n v i c t e d of r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n p r o p e r t y . Approximately one month p r i o r t o August 12, 1971, an uni d e n t i f i e d informant n o t i f i e d D e c t e c t i v e Jack L. Macek of t h e Great F a l l s P o l i c e Department t h a t defendant was i n p o s s e s s i o n of some s t o l e n p r o p e r t y , s p e c i f i c a l l y , some guns taken i n a b u r g l a r y a t V a l i e r , Montana. N a c t i o n was taken a g a i n s t o defendant u n t i l August 1 2 , 1971. O t h a t d a t e , a M r s . Edwin n Olsen c a l l e d t h e Great F a l l s P o l i c e Department t o r e p o r t t h a t she had been swindled out of $14,000. She gave a d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e swindler, which D e t e c t i v e Macek thought resembled t h a t of defendant. Based on t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n , D e t e c t i v e Macek and a n o t h e r o f f i c e r went t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s r e s i d e n c e and asked t o t a l k w i t h him, Defendant allowed t h e p o l i c e t o e n t e r h i s r e s i d e n c e and upon e n t e r i n g t h e p o l i c e saw i n t h e l i v i n g room f o u r a p p a r e n t l y new t e l e v i s i o n s e t s and some s t e ~ o e q u i p m e n t . The p o l i c e then brought defendant t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n t o check out h i s s t o r y a s t o t h e r e p o r t e d swindle of Mrs. Olsen. Based on t h e information r e c e i v e d from t h e informant t h a t defendant had s t o l e n guns and on t h e p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n of t h e t e l e v i s i o n s e t s and s t e r e o equipment, t h e p o l i c e sought a s e a r c h warrant covering d e f e n d a n t ' s r e s i d e n c e . D e t e c t i v e Macek t e s t i f i e d b e f o r e t h e p r e s i d i n g judge t h a t t h e p o l i c e department had a d e s c r i p t i o n of guns taken from t h e b u r g l a r y i n V a l i e r , and a l s o a l i s t of o t h e r p r o p e r t y taken from around t h e s t a t e , which included t e l e v i s i o n s and s t e r e o equipment. The judge i s s u e d t h e warrant f o r t h e guns p a r t i c u l a r l y and, i f f i n d i n g any of t h o s e guns, t h e p o l i c e could t h e n t a k e any of t h e items they found which were on t h e i r l i s t s . Upon arriving at defendant's residence, the police seized a quantity of guns and ammunition, plus the tel-evisionsand stereo equipment. Defendant was charged and convicted of receiving stolen property and sentenced to ten years in the Montana state prison, with all but five years suspended, Defendant enumerates numerous errors on appeal. We will discuss the issue of the search warrant---whether there was probable cause for its issuance and if it was particular enough to meet statutory requirements. A motion to suppress the evidence seized was made, a hearing had, and the trial judge denied the motion. Here, denial of the motion to suppress is the determinative issue, Section 95-704, R.C.M. 1947, details when a search warrant may be issued and what it must contain: I1 Any judge may issue a search warrant upon the written application of any person that an offense has been committed, made under oath or affirmation before him which: "a () States facts sufficient to show probable cause for issuance of the warrant, "b () Particularly describes the place or things to be searched, and "c () seized.11 Particularly describes the things to be The statute is clear, it requires that there must be sufficient facts to show probable cause to issue the warrant, that the warrant be particular as to the place to be searched, and particular as to the things to be seized. The question here is whether this warrant meets Montana's statutory requirements. We first consider Detective Macek's deposition given prior to the issuance of the warrant. In the deposition, he gave these answers to questions asked by the judge : "Judge Nelson: Do you have a description of the guns taken out of Valier? "Officer Macek: Yes we have a description over at the s t a t i o n , Judge. o "Judge Nelson: D you know what kind of guns you would be looking f o r ? " O f f i c e r Macek: Yes, o "Judge Nelson: D you have a l i s t on t h e s t o l e n o guns you would be looking f o r ? D you have a r e p o r t on s t o l e n T V ' s and s t e r e o s ? " O f f i c e r Macek: I would t h i n k , Judge, t h a t t h e s e T V ' S came from o u t of town * * *. "Judge Nelson: The guns came from t h e V a l i e r b u r g l a r y added). A f t e r t h i s testimony, a warrant was i s s u e d and signed by t h e judge, which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , r e a d : "PROOF BY COMPLAINT, AFFIDAVIT AND DEPOSITION, having been made t h i s d a t e b e f o r e m by ARTHUR G . MATTEUCCI, e Deputy County Attorney i n and f o r t h e County of Cascade, S t a t e of Montana, t h a t t h e r e a r e l o c a t e d c e r t a i n guns, s t o l e n i n a V a l i e r b u r g l a r y and t e l e v i s i o n s e t s and s t e r e o s s t o l e n o u t ak town l o c a t e d a t t h e r e s i d e n c e a t 4024 E l l a Avenue, f r o n t apartment, Great F a l l s , Montana. See Deposition on f i l e h e r e i n f o r f u r t h e r d e t a i l s . I I (Emphasis added) A t a h e a r i n g on suppression of t h e evidence, D e t e c t i v e Macek t e s t i f i e d ; t h i s time s t a t i n g t h a t t h e r e was no b u r g l a r y i n Valier. I t i s c l e a r from t h i s l a t e r testimony t h a t t h e r e was no l i s t of any guns taken from a b u r g l a r y i n V a l i e r , Montana. I t may be t r u e t h a t t h e p o l i c e had a l i s t of guns s t o l e n from small towns o u t s i d e of Great F a l l s , b u t t h a t i s n o t what D e t e c t i v e Macek t e s t i f i e d t o a t t h e time evidence was given f o r t h e i s s u a n c e of a w a r r a n t . The judge s p e c i f i c a l l y asked him i f h e had such a l i s t , and he s a i d " ~ e s " . The judge then t o l d him he could have a warrant f o r t h o s e guns, and i f t h e guns w e r e found, meaning t h e guns on t h e l i s t , then t h e o f f i c e r could a l s o t a k e t h e t e l e v i s i o n s e t s and s t e r e o s , W e do n o t know, from t h e r e c o r d , what p a r t i c u l a r guns t h e o f f i c e r had a u t h o r i t y t o s e i z e . The p a r t i c u l a r guns were n o t l i s t e d on t h e w a r r a n t ; t h e w a r r a n t says t o check t h e d e p o s i t i o n ; t h e d e p o s i t i o n says t h e l i s t i s a t t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n . Here, t h e p a r t i c u l a r l i s t o f guns was n o t placed i n the warranL, o r A warrant cannot simply s t a t e " c e r t a i n guns", anywhere e l s e . a s t h i s warrant d i d , and meet s t a t u t o r y requirements. It i s n o t an unreasonable burden t o r e q u i r e t h a t such a l i s t be produced and placed i n t h e r e c o r d . It i s c l e a r t h a t erroneous i n f o r m a t i o n was given t o t h e d i s t r i c t judge, and t h a t t h i s information provided t h e evidence upon which t h e warrant was i s s u e d . W cannot uphold w a r r a n t s e which a r e n o t based on probable c a u s e , and probable cause cannot be e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e use of i n c o r r e c t information. The only b a s i s f o r t h i s warrant was upon t h e p r e t e x t of looking f o r s t o l e n guns. It was n o t i s s u e d because t h e o f f i c e r s saw four t e l e v i s i o n s e t s and t h e s t e r e o equipment. The d i s t r i c t judge s t a t e d : Particularly "You may have a search w a r r a n t . f o r t h e s e guns, and i f you f i n d t h e guns o r any o f them, I t h i n k you a r e s a f e i n t a k i n g t h e TV's and s t e r e o s s o t h a t you can check them o u t . I1 There i s no b a s i s f o r an a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e t e l e v i s i o n s e t s and s t e r e o equipment e s t a b l i s h e d probable cause f o r i s s u a n c e of t h e w a r r a n t . From a l l t h e f a c t s appearing i n t h e r e c o r d , i t i s apparant t h e warrant was n o t based o r i s s u e d on probable c a u s e , s i n c e t h e testimony given t o support t h e warrant was i n c o r r e c t , t h e r e f o r e t h e items s e i z e d under t h e power of t h e warrant should have been suppressed. The s t a t e u r g e s S t a t e v . Quigg, 155 Mont. 119, 126, 130,131, 467 P,2d 692, a s support f o r i t s p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e s e a r c h warrant was drawn w i t h s u f f i c i e n t p a r t i c u l a r i t y . o f Quigg A review should demonstrate t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e s e c a s e s . I n w i g & a search warrant was approved which allowed t h e p ~ ~ l i c o seize: te "Any . 2 2 c a l i b e r p i s t o l , a gold wristwatch w i t h expansion band o r any o t h e r p r o p e r t y o r evidence they might d i s c o v e r t h a t may connect t o t h e demise o f Lee Robhins : 9 * I f , 9 ; appeal, t h i s Court s t a t e d : "+; a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r d e s c r i p t i o n necessary t o meet s t a t u t o r y and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirements may b e made only i n view of t h e f a c t s and circumstances of t h e p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . JC ci+C * I1 I n t h e c o n t e x t , and under t h e f a c t s and circums t a n c e s then known t o t h e law enforcement o f f i c e r s , t h e language i s n o t , i n our view, language t h a t would be considered ' g e n e r a l ' . The deceased had been robbed b e f o r e s l a i n , h i s automobile s t o l e n and b u r g l a r i z e d . Exactly what was taken and w i t h d e t a i l e d e x a c t n e s s , only t h e deceased and t h e c r i m i n a l o r c r i m i n a l s involved knew; b u t , p a p e r s , money, and a gold watch were shown t o be missing. Because of t h e r i f l e d c o n d i t i o n of t h e automobile, t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of missing drug items was t h e r e b u t no p a r t i c u l a r s of what might be missing were known. 1 1 I n Q u i g g t h e p a r t i c u l a r i t y of d e s c r i p t i o n , under t h e f a c t s and circumstances shown t o e x i s t , were s a t i s f i e d . But a p p l i e d h e r e , erroneous information s u p p l i e d t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e a r e t h e f a c t s and circumstances d i c t a t i n g t h e o p p o s i t e r e s u l t . Defendant r a i s e s o t h e r i s s u e s on a p p e a l b u t we f i n d i t n o t n e c e s s a r y t o d i s c u s s them s i n c e we have h e r e t o f o r e found t h a t t h e items s e i z e d under t h e warrant should have been suppressed a t t h e t r i a l . Defendant was convicted of r e c e i v i n g s t o l e n property; t o support h i s conviction i t i s absolutely n e c e s s a r y t o p l a c e i n t o evidence t h e items s e i z e d under t h e improper s e a r c h . Without t h i s evidence, i t i s c l e a r t h e r e i s no c a s e a g a i n s t defendant. Therefore, we o r d e r t h e c o n v i c t i o n r e v e r s e d and t h e cause dismissed, i Chief ~ h s t i c e *-------------------------- Associate J u s t i c e s . M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly t a k e s no p a r t i n t h i s Opinion,
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
