STATE v AMOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12584 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1974 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - JERRY A . AMOR, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of 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 o f Record: For Appellant : Hon. R o b e r t L. Woodahl, A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana J . C W e i n g a r t n e r , Deputy A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , Helena, Montana P a u l C . Bunn, County A t t o r n e y , C h e s t e r , Montana Donald Marble a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , C h e s t e r , Montana . F o r Respondent : M o r r i s o n , E t t i e n and Barron, Havre, Montana R o b e r t D. Morrison a r g u e d , Havre, Montana Submitted: Filed : APR - 2 1974 Decided : F e b r u a r y 28, 1974 APR 2 1974 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . The S t a t e o f Montana b r i n g s t h i s a p p e a l from a n o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f L i b e r t y County s u p p r e s s i n g c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e t h e S t a t e s o u g h t t o i n t r o d u c e i n t h e t r i a l of d e f e n d a n t , J e r r y A. Amor, who i s c h a r g e d w i t h b u r g l a r y . The e v i d e n c e i n q u e s t i o n i s a s c r a p of c a r d b o a r d upon which i s w r i t t e n a l i s t of d r u g s and c o r r e s p o n d i n g amounts, which was s e i z e d from Amor's a u t o m o b i l e by a member of t h e L i b e r t y County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e . On March 1 3 , 1973, a t a b o u t 9:45 p.m., t h e L i b e r t y County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e was n o t i f i e d by employees o f t h e C h e s t e r P r o f e s s i o n a l C l i n i c t h a t t h e c l i n i c had j u s t been b u r g l a r i z e d . t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n a t a b o u t 11:40 p.m., During a t t e n t i o n was c e n t e r e d on a l o n e a u t o m o b i l e parked i n a c h u r c h p a r k i n g l o t a s h o r t d i s t a n c e from t h e c l i n i c . Looking t h r o u g h t h e windows, o f f i c e r s were a b l e t o s e e t h e k e y s i n t h e i g n i t i o n , a b e e r c a n and what a p p e a r e d t o b e a box of r i f l e ammunition on t h e s e a t . A l i c e n s e p l a t e check r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e c a r was r e g i s t e r e d t o d e f e n d a n t Amor, who, t h e o f f i c e r s l e a r n e d , matched t h e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e b u r g l a r g i v e n by t h e c l i n i c employees and who was t h e n on p a r o l e from a c o n v i c t i o n and s e n t e n c e f o r r a p e . The o f f i c e r s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y were aware t h a t p a r o l e e s a r e n o t p e r m i t t e d t o p o s s e s s weapons. A s e a r c h was n e x t made of t h e c h u r c h and no one was found i n s i d e . The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t a m e e t i n g had been h e l d a t t h e church e a r l i e r t h a t evening. The o f f i c e r s t h e n s e a r c h e d t h e Arnor c a r and d i s c o v e r e d t h e d r u g l i s t i n t h e g l o v e compartment. The d r u g l i s t was r e t u r n e d and t h e c a r d r i v e n t o t h e u n d e r s h e r i f f ' s p r i v a t e g a r a g e , where i t was k e p t o v e r n i g h t . The n e x t morning t h e car w a s t a k e n t o t h e C h e s t e r M o t o r ' s Garage, and w h i l e t h e r e a n o f f i c e r e n t e r e d t h e a u t o m o b i l e and t o o k t h e d r u g l i s t from t h e c a r ' s g l o v e compartment. I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t n e i t h e r t h e March 1 3 t h o r 1 4 t h s e a r c h e s o f Arnor's a u t o m o b i l e were made p u r s u a n t t o a w a r r a n t , o r c o n s e n t g i v e n by Amor, o r w e r e i n c i d e n t t o an a r r e s t o f Amor. The s o l e i s s u e a s s i g n e d by t h e S t a t e on t h i s a p p e a l i s whether 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 t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o s u p p r e s s t h e e v i d e n c e . The s t a t e c o n t e n d s on t h i s a p p e a l t h a t t h e "mobile premises-p r o b a b l e c a u s e " w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h e x c e p t i o n a p p l i e d by t h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e v . Speilmann and C h r i s t e n s e n , 30 St.Rep. Mont - . , 1036, i 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 . 516 P.2d 617, In those cases, and i n t h e v a r i o u s f e d e r a l c a s e s c i t e d and r e l i e d upon t h e r e i n , t h e w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h e x c e p t i o n was p r e d i c a t e d upon t h e e x i s t e n c e of probable cause coupled with exigent circumstances. In the instant c a s e t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e ammunition box i n t h e a u t o m o b i l e and t h e knowledge t h a t Amor, t h e r e g i s t e r e d owner, was a p a r o l e e who matched t h e g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e b u r g l a r were f a c t s c o n t r i b u t o r y t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of probable cause, n o t exigent circumstances. In t h e above c i t e d ca.ses e x i g e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s e x i s t e d b e c a u s e t h e r e was a f l e e t i n g o p p o r t u n i t y t o s e a r c h an o c c u p i e d a u t o m o b i l e which had been s t o p p e d w h i l e t r a v e l i n g on a highway. I n no c a s e may t h e e x i s t e n c e o f e x i g e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s b e p r e d i c a t e d upon t h e mere f a c t t h a t t h e o b j e c t of t h e s e a r c h was a n a u t o m o b i l e . o f Coolidge v . New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. In the case 2022, 29 L Ed 2d 564, 580, 583, t h e m a j o r i t y o p i n i o n s t a t e d : "The word ' a u t o m o b i l e ' i s n o t a t a l i s m a n i n whose p r e s e n c e t h e F o u r t h Amendment f a d e s away and d i s a p p e a r s . And s u r e l y t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n t h i s c a s e t o i n v o k e t h e meaning and p u r p o s e o f t h e r u l e of C a r r o l l v . United S t a t e s (267 U.S. 1 3 2 , 45 S.Ct. 280)--no a l e r t e d c r i m i n a l b e n t on f l i g h t , no f l e e t i n g o p p o r t u n i t y on an open highway a f t e r a h a z a r d o u s c h a s e , no c o n t r a b a n d o r s t o l e n goods o r weapons, no c o n f e d e r a t e s w a i t i n g t o move t h e e v i d e n c e , n o t even t h e i n c o n v e n i e n c e of a s p e c i a l p o l i c e d e t a i l t o g u a r d t h e immobili z e d a u t o m o b i l e . I n s h o r t , by no p o s s i b l e s t r e t c h of t h e l e g a l i m a g i n a t i o n can t h i s be made i n t o a c a s e where ' i t was n o t p r a c t i c a b l e t o s e c u r e a w a r r a n t , ' C a r r o l l , s u p r a , a t 1 5 3 , 69 L Ed a t 551, 39 ALR 790, and the 'automobile exception,' despite its label, is simply irrelevant. Likewise in the instant case, we find that it was both practicable and mandatory that the officers obtain a valid warrant before conducting a search of Amor's parked, unoccupied automobile. The State also contends that the drug list seized from the glove compartment of Amor's automobile comes under the socalled "plain view" exception. This contention erroneously pre- supposes that the officers had justification for their intrusion into Amor's automobile and its glove compartment when they came upon the drug list. Quoting again from the majority opinion in Coolidge : "What the 'plain view' cases have in common is that the police officer in each of them had a prior justification for an intrusion in the course of which he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to supplement the prior justification--whether it be a warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for being present unconnected with a search directed against the accused--and permits the warrantless seizure. * * * " Finally, the State contends that Amor's automobile was searched as part of a "standard inventory procedure" of an impounded abandoned vehicle. The record shows that the officers were aware that the automobile belonged to Arnor, who was their prime suspect in a burglary. Sheriff Terry Stoppa testified: "Q. I am interested in this policy of handling abandoned automobiles. Did you take this automobile in your possession because you thought it was abandoned? A. No. Not primarily. "Q. A. "Q. You didn't think it was abandoned, did you? We weren't sure. We thought-It had the keys in it, didn't it? A. Yes. "Q. And did you make, try to determine how long it has been parked there? A. Yes. And what information did dig up in that r e g a r d ? A. I t had been parked t h e r e f o r some t i m e b e f o r e we had a r r i v e d t h e r e t o check it o u t . "Q. But t h a t was i n terms of h o u r s , n o t d a y s o r months o r weeks, i s n ' t t h a t r i g h t ? A. Yes. W e f i n d , a s d i d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , t h a t t h e abandoned v e h i c l e c o n t e n t i o n i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e law enf o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s and i s s u p p o r t e d by none o f t h e f a c t s i n t h e record. The o r d e r o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r Chief J u s t i c 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.
