STATE v LaFLAMME

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13234 I N TWE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O MONTANA F 1976 STATE O MONTANA, F p l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - MILTARD WADE LaFTAME , Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l District, Honorable A . B. M a r t i n , J u d g e 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 , Helena, Montana J o h n North a r g u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana R o b e r t J. Brooks a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , Broadus, Montana F o r Respondent: J o h n R. C a r r a r g u e d , Miles C i t y , Montana Submitted: Decided : F i l e d : Fu Jr - - May 27, 1976 JUL - 8 1976 M r . 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 o f t h e Court. The s t a t e of 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 , Powder R i v e r County, s u p p r e s s i n g e v i d e n c e as i l l e g a l l y s e i z e d . The d e f e n d a n t , M i l l a r d Wade LaFlamrne, w a s charged w i t h c r i m i n a l m i s c h i e f , i n v i o l a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 9 4 - 6 - 1 0 2 ( 1 ) ( a ) , R.C.M. 1947, c a u s i n g damages of more t h a n $150, a f e l o n y . On J a n u a r y 24, 1975, a . 4 4 magnum p i s t o l w a s used t o damage a weigh s t a t i o n n e a r Broadus. I t was known t h a t t h e de- f e n d a n t owned a . 4 4 magnum and on J a n u a r y 27, 1975, t h e Powder R i v e r County s h e r i f f , accompanied by t h e C u s t e r County s h e r i f f approached t h e d e f e n d a n t on t h e grounds of M i l e s Community C o l l e g e and asked i f a b a l l i s t i c s e x a m i n a t i o n c o u l d be made of d e f e n d a n t ' s weapon. Defendant a g r e e d and went t o t h e room where he s t a y e d , f o l l o w e d by t h e two p e a c e o f f i c e r s who w a i t e d i n t h e room w h i l e d e f e n d a n t looked f o r t h e weapon. t h e weapon t h e r e . Defendant was u n a b l e t o f i n d A t t h i s p o i n t , t h e Powder R i v e r County s h e r i f f s u g g e s t e d t h a t b e f o r e d e f e n d a n t r e p o r t t h e weapon m i s s i n g , def e n d a n t s h o u l d examine t h e l i g h t u t i l i t y p i c k u p t r u c k t h a t h e owned t o s e e i f t h e p i s t o l was t h e r e . Defendant s t a t e d i n re- sponse t o t h i s suggestion: " I * * * I d o n ' t know i f i t w a s o u t t h e r e o r n o t ' , and I s a i d , ' I ' d go t a k e a l o o k ' " A f t e r a b r i e f e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e s m a l l p i c k u p t r u c k , t h e def e n d a n t made a comment t o t h e e f f e c t : " * * * 'Well, I guess i t ' s not here' * * *." The Powder River County s h e r i f f r e c a l l e d what happened n e x t : " * * * when he q u i t l o o k i n g , I s a i d , 'How a b o u t behind t h e s e a t ' and -- ' W e l l , I d o n ' t t h i n k s o ' , h e s a i d , and I j u s t t i p p e d t h e s e a t ahead w h i l e I was s t a n d i n g t h e r e , and t h e r e it laid. " The s h e r i f f c o n f i s c a t e d t h e . 4 4 magnum t h a t h e found on t h e f l o o r of t h e p i c k u p t r u c k . The d e f e n d a n t c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e s e a r c h made by t h e Powder R i v e r County s h e r i f f of h i s p i c k u p t r u c k v i o l a t e s t h e F o u r t h Amendment's g u a r a n t e e of freedom from u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s and t h e s i m i l a r g u a r a n t e e i n t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n i n A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 11. He f u r t h e r a l l e g e s t h a t it v i o l a t e d t h e s e c t i o n of t h e Code o f C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e which c o d i f i e s t h e s e g u a r a n t e e s , s e c t i o n 95-701, R.C.M. 1947. This s e c t i o n a u t h o r i z e s s e a r c h e s t o be made: " (a) A s a n i n c i d e n t t o a lawful arrest. " (b) With t h e c o n s e n t of t h e a c c u s e d "(c) By t h e a u t h o r i t y of a v a l i d s e a r c h w a r r a n t . "(d) Under a u t h o r i t y and w i t h i n t h e scope o f a r i g h t of l a w f u l i n s p e c t i o n g r a n t e d by law." * * * A t t h e t i m e o f t h e s e a r c h t h e r e w a s no l a w f u l a r r e s t and no s e a r c h w a r r a n t , s o s u b s e c t i o n s ( a ) and ( c ) a r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e . The s e a r c h was n o t a r o u t i n e i n s p e c t i o n t y p e s e a r c h c o n t e m p l a t e d by s u b s e c t i o n ( d ) . T h e r e f o r e t h e o n l y b a s i s r e m a i n i n g and t h e o n l y one c l a i m e d a s t h e b a s i s f o r t h e s e a r c h i s t h a t o f s u b s e c t i o n ( b ) , t h a t t h e s e a r c h w a s one conducted w i t h t h e c o n s e n t of t h e accused. The q u e s t i o n b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t i s whether d e f e n d a n t g a v e h i s c o n s e n t t o have h i s p i c k u p t r u c k s e a r c h e d . T h e r e i s a heavy burden of proof r e q u i r e d t o show t h a t t h e r e w a s a c o n s e n t . The United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n Bumper v . North C a r o l i n a , 391 U.S. 543, 20 L ed 2d 797, 802, 88 S.Ct. 1788, s e t f o r t h t h e b a s i c requirement: "When a p r o s e c u t o r s e e k s t o r e l y upon c o n s e n t t o j u s t i f y t h e l a w f u l n e s s of a s e a r c h , he h a s t h e burden o f p r o v i n g t h a t t h e c o n s e n t was, i n f a c t , f r e e l y and v o l u n t a r i l y g i v e n . * * * " The N i n t h C i r c u i t C o u r t of Appeals gave a more e l a b o r a t e s t a t e ment of t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t i n Channel1 v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 285 F.2d 217, 219 ( 1 9 6 0 ) , s a y i n g : "A s e a r c h and s e i z u r e may be made w i t h o u t a s e a r c h w a r r a n t i f t h e i n d i v i d u a l f r e e l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y g i v e s h i s u n e q u i v o c a l and s p e c i f i c c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h , uncontaminated by any d u r e s s o r c o e r c i o n , a c t u a l o r i m p l i e d . The Government h a s t h e burden o f p r o v i n g by c l e a r p o s i t i v e evidence t h a t such consent w a s given." T h i s C o u r t h a s e x p r e s s e d a s i m i l a r view i n S t a t e v. P e t e r s , 146 Mont. 188, 205, 405 P.2d 642, when it s a i d t h a t a p p e l l a n t t h r o u g h his " * * * v e r b a l c o n s e n t and a c t i v e c o o p e r a t i o n ' r e f l e c t e d a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g , u n c o e r c e d , and u n e q u i v o c a l e l e c t i o n t o g r a n t [ t h e a u t h o r i t i e s ] a l i c e n s e which he knew c o u l d be f r e e l y and e f f e c t i v e l y withheld.'" The q u e s t i o n t o be answered i n t h i s c a s e i s whether t h e words and a c t i o n s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t w e r e s u c h t h a t a f r e e l y g i v e n , u n e q u i v o c a l , and s p e c i f i c c o n s e n t i s shown by clear p o s i t i v e evidence. The f i r s t e v i d e n c e i s t h i s : A t t h e suppression hearing t h e Powder R i v e r County s h e r i f f upon q u e s t i o n i n g by t h e c o u r t a d m i t t e d t h a t he had n e v e r a s k e d t h e d e f e n d a n t i f he c o u l d s e a r c h t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s room o r t r u c k . The c r u c i a l q u e s t i o n "Can I s e a r c h your p i c k u p t r u c k ? " w a s n e v e r a s k e d , N e a r l y a l l t h e c a s e s t h a t d e a l w i t h t h e problem of whether t h e r e was a clear and u n e q u i v o c a l c o n s e n t f o l l o w a s i m i l a r f a c t u a l pattern. I n t h o s e c a s e s , t h e d e f e n d a n t g i v e s a clear v e r b a l con- For s e n t b u t d o e s something which i n d i c a t e s a c o n t r a r y i n t e n t . 97 , example i n C i p r e s v. United S t a t e s , 343 F.2d 95,/(1965), t h e def e n d a n t , when asked i f t h e a u t h o r i t i e s c o u l d s e a r c h h e r b a g s s a i d , "Yes, I have n o t h i n g t o h i d e . " b u t went on t o s a y t h a t s h e d i d n o t have t h e keys t o t h e b a g s , t h a t t h e k e y s w e r e i n New York. b a g s w e r e n o t locked and t h e a u t h o r i t i e s s e a r c h e d them. S t a t e o f Montana v . Tomich, 3 3 2 F.2d The In the 987 989 ( 1 9 6 4 ) , t h e d e p u t y asked t h e d e f e n d a n t i f he c o u l d s e a r c h t h e t r u n k of t h e defenda n t ' s c a r and t h e d e f e n d a n t s a i d , "Yes, you c a n . " b u t a l s o s a i d t h a t he d i d n o t have t h e key s o it c o u l d n o t be opened. f e n d a n t had t h e key i n h i s s h o e . De- Thc d e p u t y had a l o c k s m i t h open t h e t r u n k and it was s e a r c h e d . I n b o t h o f t h e s e cases t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t found t h a t t h e s e a r c h was n o t a v a l i d unequivocal consent t o a search. While t h i s C o u r t i s n o t i n f u l l agreement w i t h t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n it i s c l e a r t h a t i n t h e a b s e n c e of a p o s i t i v e v e r b a l a s s e n t t o t h e s e a r c h , e q u i v o c a l c o n d u c t a l o n e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t as a b a s i s f o r a n i n f e r e n c e o f c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h , which i s a w a i v e r of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t asked t h e Powder R i v e r County s h e r i f f t h i s question: "Q. You j u s t t o o k it from t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h a t he was g i v i n g h i s c o n s e n t ? A . W e l l , he unlocked t h e d o o r and went i n and looked i n and s a i d t h a t it w a s n ' t h e r e , and I t o l d him t h a t he s h o u l d l o o k everywhere t h a t it might be b e f o r e h e r e p o r t e d it m i s s i n g . " T h i s s t a t e m e n t i s n o t t h e s o r t of c l e a r e v i d e n c e r e q u i r e d t o show t h e v a l i d u n e q u i v o c a l c o n s e n t t h a t i s r e q u i r e d f o r t h e w a i v e r of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t . A comparison of t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e and P e t e r s shows t h e s u b s t a n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e between t h e two c a s e s . In Peters d e f e n d a n t g a v e h i s v e r b a l a s s e n t t o t h e s e a r c h and a c t i v e l y a s s i s t e d t h e a u t h o r i t i e s i n t h e search. Here, d e f e n d a n t n e v e r gave h i s v e r b a l a s s e n t t o t h e s e a r c h and d i d a l l t h e s e a r c h i n g himself. I f P e t e r s had t o l d t h e a u t h o r i t i e s t h a t he would l o o k f o r t h e c a l v e s h i m s e l f and t h e n r e p o r t e d t h a t h e had found nothi n g u n u s u a l , t h e a u t h o r i t i e s would n o t have been j u s t i f i e d i n e n t e r i n g t h e p r e m i s e s t h e m s e l v e s and making t h e i r own s e a r c h . For t h e same r e a s o n s t h e s h e r i f f h e r e c o u l d n o t s e a r c h t h e t r u c k a f t e r d e f e n d a n t had looked f o r t h e weapon and r e p o r t e d t h a t it was n o t i n t h e t r u c k . For a c a s e where no s e a r c h w a s made by o f f i c e r s b u t a r i f l e w a s v o l u n t a r i l y t u r n e d o v e r t o t h e s h e r i f f who v o l u n t a r i l y r e c e i v e d i t , s e e S t a t e v. W i l l i a m s , 153 Mont. 2 6 2 , 455 P.2d 634. For t h e s e r e a s o n s t h e o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a £f irmed . W concur: e I judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . Chief J u s t i c e J a m e s T. H a r r i s o n .

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.