STATE v STEWART
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12668 I N THE SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O MONTANA OR F H F 1974 - - STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - WILLIAM FLJLTON STEWART, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable B. W. Thomas, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Thomas J Beers, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Ronald W. Smith, County Attorney, argued, Havre, Montana . For Respondent : Morrison, E t t i e n and Barron, Havre, Montana Robert D. Morrison argued, Havre, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: OCT 8 1974' September 18, 1974 bCt 8 1 7 94 M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. 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. The r e s p o n d e n t , W i l l i a m F u l t o n S t e w a r t , was a r r e s t e d on March 1 6 , 1973, f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f dangerous d r u g s . Re- spondent made a motion t o s u p p r e s s a l l e v i d e n c e s e i z e d from h i s p e r s o n a t t h e t i m e o f h i s a r r e s t and a l l e v i d e n c e d i s c o v e r e d and s e i z e d a t h i s r e s i d e n c e p u r s u a n t t o a s e a r c h w a r r a n t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t of H i l l County o r d e r e d t h 3 t a l l e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d by e i t h e r s e a r c h b e s u p p r e s s e d . The S t a t e o f Montana h a s a p p e a l e d t h e s u p p r e s s i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d by t h e s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o respondent's a r r e s t . P r i o r t o March 1 6 , 1973, r e s n o n d e n t ' s r e s i d e n c e was p l a c e d u n d e r p o l i c e s u r v e i l l a n c e on a t l e a s t e i g h t o c c a s i o n s . An i n f o r - mant had s a i d t h a t m a r i j u a n a , a h a s h p i p e , and o t h e r d r u g r e l a t e d p a r a p h e r n a l i a c o u l d b e found t h e r e ; t h e purpose o f t h e s u r v e i l l a n c e was t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r known d r u g u s e r s were f r e q u e n t i n g t h e premises. Among known d r u g u s e r s who were s e e n a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s r e s i d e n c e d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d were Dave M a r i a n i and H a r l a n Swan. On March 1 6 , 1973, s u r v e i l l a n c e was broadened. That a f t e r - noon o f f i c e r s Robert K u r t z and James D o x t a t e r went t o t h e Le Havre I n n and p o s i t i o n e d t h e m s e l v e s where t h e y c o u l d view a l l t h e a c t i v i t y o f r e s p o n d e n t a t t h e Westco S e r v i c e S t a t i o n , h i s p l a c e o f employment. The o f f i c e r s were equipped w i t h a twenty power s p o t t - i n g s c o p e and a p a i r o f b i n o c u l a r s . Throughout t h i s p e r i o d o f s u r v e i l l a n c e p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n was p a i d t o t h e f r e q u e n t v i s i t s of M a r i a n i and Swan t o t h e s t a t i o n . p.m., They f i r s t came around 4:00 t h e n between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., and a g a i n around 7:00 p.m. A f t e r t h e second v i s i t M a r i a n i and Swan l e f t t h e s t a t i o n w i t h o u t the l a t t e r ' s pickup. A t t h i s t i m e r e s p o n d e n t went o v e r t o t h e -2- pick-up, removed a n o b j e c t from t h e cab and p l a c e d i t i n h i s p o c k e t , and r e t u r n e d t o t h e s t a t i o n . Once i n s i d e t h e s t a t i o n , repondent removed t h e o b j e c t from h i s p o c k e t and p i c k e d something out of i t . a t 7:00 p.m., When M a r i a n i and Swan r e j o i n e d r e s p o n d e n t r e s p o n d e n t a g a i n removed t h e o b j e c t from h i s pocket and waved i t i n t h e a i r . O f f i c e r Kurtz r e c o g n i z e d t h e o b j e c t a s a "baggie" c o n t a i n i n g a d a r k - c o l o r e d s u b s t a n c e . I m m e d i a t e l y t h e r e a f t e r t h e t r i o were o b s e r v e d p a s s i n g t h e "baggie" among t h e m s e l v e s . Kurtz I s Based upon t h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s and o f f i c e r f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h m a r i j u a n a i n r e s a l e form, t h e o f f i c e r s proceeded t o t h e s t a t i o n t o make a r r e s t s . The "baggier' was found i n r e s p o n d e n t ' s r i g h t p o c k e t and s e i z e d by o f f i c e r D o x t a t e r . The c o n t e n t s o f t h e "baggie" were l a t e r a n a l y z e d a s m a r i j u a n a . The s o l e i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e r e was p r o b a b l e c a u s e u n d e r t h e F o u r t h Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n t o a r r e s t respondent without a warrant. A s u c c i n c t s t a t e m e n t o f what c o n s t i t u t e s " p r o b a b l e c a u s e " i s found i n B r i n e g a r v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 338 U.S. 160, 1 7 5 , 9 3 L.Ed. " I n d e a l i n g w i t h p r o b a b l e c a u s e , however, a s t h e v e r y name i m l i e s we d e a l w i t h p r o b a b i l i t i e s . These a r e n o t t e c R n i c a i ; t h e y a r e t h e f a c t u a l and practical cond d e r a t i o n s of everyday l i f e on which r e a s o n a b l e and p r u d e n t men, n o t l e g a l t e c h n i c i a n s , a c t . The s t a n d a r d o f proof i s a c c o r d i n g l y c o r r e l a t i v e t o what must be proved. a he s u b s t a n c e o f a l l t h e d e f i n i t i o n s ' of p r o b a b l e c a u s e ' i s a r e a s o n a b l e ground f o r b e l i e f of g u i l t . ' McCarthy v . De A r m i t , 99 Pa. S t . 6 3 , 69, quoted w i t h a p p r o v a l i n t h e C a r r o l l o p i n i o n , 267 U.S. a t 161. And t h i s 'means l e s s t h a n e v i d e n c e which would j u s t i f y condemnation' o r c o n v i c t i o n , a s M a r s h a l l , C . J . , s a i d f o r t h e Court more t h a n a c e n t u r y ago i n Locke v . United S t a t e s , 7 Cranch 339, 348. S i n c e ~ a r s h a l l ' st i m e , a t any r a t e , i t h a s come t o mean more t h a n b a r e s u s p i c i o n : P r o b a b l e c a u s e e x i s t s where ' t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h i n t h e i r [ t h e o f f i c e r s ' ] knowledge and o f which t h e y had r e a s o n a b l e t r u s t w o r t h y i n f o r m a t i o n [ a r e ] s u f f i c i e n t i n t h e m s e l v e s t o w a r r a n t a man of r e a s o n a b l e c a u t i o n i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t ' a n o f f e n s e h a s been o r i s b e i n g committed. C a r r o l l v . United S t a t e s , 267 U.S. 132, 162." Applying t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s t o t h e c a s e a t b a r , we c o n c l u d e t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r r e s p o n d e n t ' s a r r e s t . I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h i s c a s e i s n o t one i n which p r o b a b l e cause stands o r f a l l s with t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of an informant. Any u s e f u l n e s s t h e i n f o r m a n t h e r e may have had i n t h e b e g i n n i n g was l o n g s i n c e d i s s i p a t e d by t h e s u b s e q u e n t c h a i n of e v e n t s . What p r o b a b l e c a u s e does r e s t upon i s good p o l i c e work by t h e officers. 1. Consider t h e record: The o f f i c e r s had e s t a b l i s h e d s u r v e i l l a n c e t o o b s e r v e p o s s i b l e d r u g t r a f f i c a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s p l a c e o f employment. 2. Known d r u g u s e r s were s e e n t h e r e s e v e r a l t i m e s . 3. Respondent was o b s e r v e d removing a n o b j e c t from t h e v e h i c l e of one o f t h e s e known d r u g u s e r s . 4. The o b j e c t was r e c o g n i z e d a s a "baggie" c o n t a i n i n g a dark-colored substance. 5. The "baggie" was passed around by r e s p o n d e n t and t h e s e known drug u s e r s . 6. A t l e a s t one o f t h e o f f i c e r s had p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e d r u g f i e l d and knew t h a t "baggies" were commonly u s e d a s r e c e p t a c l e s f o r i l l i c i t drugs. I n view of t h e f o r e g o i n g , i t i s o u r view t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s a c t e d under a reasonable b e l i e f t h a t a crime was being comm i t t e d i n t h e i r presence. Accordingly, t h e o r d e r suppressing t h e evidence s e i z e d from r e s p o n d e n t ' s person a t t h e time of h i s a r r e s t i s vacated and s e t a s i d e and t h e cause i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. .................................... Chief J u s t i c e W concur: e
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.
