STATE v RYAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14224 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTAN 1978 THE STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vsELWOOD WILLIAM RYAN, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana James D. Walen, argued, Deputy County Attorney, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Berger, Anderson, Sinclair and Murphy, Billings, Montana Chris J. Nelson argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: Decided: December 11, 1978 JAN 16 ;$73 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 Court. his a p p e a l i s brought by t h e S t a t e of Montana from an o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , s u p p r e s s i n g c e r t a i n s t a t e m e n t s made by d e f e n d a n t Elwood Ryan d u r i n g t h e e x e c u t i o n of a s e a r c h w a r r a n t a t h i s home. a p p e a l i s a u t h o r i z e d by s e c t i o n 95-2403(2) ( f ) , R.C.M. The 1947, which p e r m i t s t h e S t a t e t o a p p e a l from any c o u r t o r d e r i n a c r i m i n a l c a s e which r e s u l t s i n t h e s u p p r e s s i o n of a confess i o n o r admission. A t approximately 1 0 : O O a.m. on September 22, 1977, two d e t e c t i v e s from t h e Yellowstone County s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e and two s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e r s from G a r f i e l d County a r r i v e d a t d e f e n d a n t ' s home i n J o r d a n , Montana. The d e t e c t i v e s were i n p l a i n c l o t h e s and drove a n unmarked c a r w h i l e t h e G a r f i e l d County o f f i c e r s were i n uniform and drove a s h e r i f f ' s v e h i c l e . When t h e o f f i c e r s a r r i v e d , d e f e n d a n t and h i s s t e p s o n were o u t s i d e t h e house working on a v e h i c l e parked i n t h e yard. Detective E l l i s presented defendant with a search warrant a u t h o r i z i n g t h e o f f i c e r s t o s e a r c h h i s home f o r v a r i o u s f i r e a r m s which d e f e n d a n t had e a r l i e r r e p o r t e d s t o l e n and f o r which he had r e c e i v e d i n s u r a n c e compensation. Upon r e a d i n g a copy of t h e w a r r a n t d e f e n d a n t r e p o r t e d l y t o l d t h e o f f i c e r s , "Well, you guys have g o t me anyway. I w i l l j u s t show you where t h e guns a r e a t . " ~t t h e time t h e s t a t e m e n t was made d e f e n d a n t had n o t been g i v e n a Miranda warning. I n s i d e t h e house d e f e n d a n t r e q u e s t e d t h e o f f i c e r s t o w a i t w h i l e h i s w i f e g o t o u t of bed and d r e s s e d . When s h e had done s o , he e s c o r t e d them i n t o h i s bedroom where he p o i n t e d t o t h e c l o s e t s a y i n g " t h e guns a r e i n there." A t t h i s p o i n t t h e o f f i c e r s had been a t d e f e n d a n t ' s home approximately t e n minutes and s t i l l had n o t informed d e f e n d a n t of h i s r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t o r t o c o n s u l t w i t h an a t t o r n e y . When t h e o f f i c e r s began checking t h e s e r i a l numbers on t h e v a r i o u s weapons t h e y found i n t h e c l o s e t , d e f e n d a n t t o l d them t h a t t h e r e was no s e n s e i n w r i t i n g them down because he had a l t e r e d them a f t e r t u r n i n g i n the burglary report. I t was o n l y a f t e r t h i s s t a t e m e n t by d e f e n d a n t t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s placed d e f e n d a n t under arrest and informed him of h i s r i g h t s . A t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g h e l d February 17, 1978, t h e D i s t r i c t Court h e l d t h a t a l l t h e s t a t e m e n t s made by d e f e n d a n t p r i o r t o h i s a r r e s t were i n a d m i s s i b l e f o r f a i l u r e t o g i v e t h e Miranda warning. The s o l e i s s u e on t h i s a p p e a l i s whether t h e s t a t e m e n t s made by d e f e n d a n t p r i o r t o h i s a r r e s t were t h e p r o d u c t of c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n and t h e r e f o r e i n a d m i s s i b l e f o r l a c k of a Miranda warning, The S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t s before a r r e s t were completely v o l u n t a r y and t h a t u n t i l t h e t i m e of h i s a r r e s t , d e f e n d a n t had n o t been d e p r i v e d of h i s freedom i n any s i g n i f i c a n t way. The S t a t e f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s had n o t i n i t i a t e d any s o r t of i n t e r r o g a t i o n o r focused t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n on d e f e n d a n t . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , it c o n t e n d s , t h e Miranda requirement i s n o t applicable. Defendant a r g u e s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s s u p p r e s s i o n o r d e r should be a f f i r m e d because t h e p r e s e n c e of f o u r armed o f f i c e r s w i t h a s e a r c h w a r r a n t d e p r i v e d him of h i s freedom i n a s i g n i f i c a n t way and t h a t he should have been informed of h i s r i g h t s t o remain s i l e n t p r i o r t o making any s t a t e ments. I n Escobedo v. I l l i n o i s ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 378 U.S. 1 2 L Ed 2d 977, 986, 84 S.Ct. 478, 490-91, 1758, 1765, t h e United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h e l d t h a t where t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n of a c r i m e h a s begun t o f o c u s o n a p a r t i c u l a r s u s p e c t , t h e s u s p e c t i s i n custody, t h e p o l i c e i n t e r r o g a t e t h e suspect thereby e l i c i t i n g i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s , t h e s u s p e c t h a s req u e s t e d and been d e n i e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o n s u l t w i t h c o u n s e l , and t h e p o l i c e have n o t e f f e c t i v e l y warned t h e s u s p e c t of h i s r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t , t h e s u s p e c t h a s t h e n been d e n i e d h i s S i x t h Amendment r i g h t t o " t h e a s s i s t a n c e of c o u n s e l " and t h e r e f o r e "no s t a t e m e n t e l i c i t e d by t h e p o l i c e d u r i n g t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n may be used a g a i n s t him a t a c r i m i n a l t r i a l . " T h i s r u l e was developed f u r t h e r i n Miranda v . Arizona ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U.S. 436, 478-79, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1630, 16 L Ed 2d 694, 726, t o r e q u i r e t h a t when a n i n d i v i d u a l i s " t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y o r o t h e r w i s e d e p r i v e d of h i s freedom by t h e a u t h o r i t i e s i n any s i g n i f i c a n t way and i s s u b j e c t e d t o q u e s t i o n i n g , " t h e a u t h o r i t i e s must employ p r o c e d u r a l s a f e g u a r d s t o " n o t i f y t h e p e r s o n of h i s r i g h t of s i l e n c e and t o a s s u r e t h a t t h e e x e r c i s e of t h e r i g h t w i l l be s c r u p u l o u s l y honored ... 11 11 ... [ U l n l e s s and u n t i l s u c h w a r n i n g s and w a i v e r a r e d e m o n s t r a t e d by t h e p r o s e c u t i o n a t t r i a l , no e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d a s a r e s u l t of i n t e r r o g a t i o n c a n be used a g a i n s t him." 384 U.S. a t 479, 86 S.Ct. a t 1630, 16 L Ed 2d a t 726. The Escobedo and Miranda h o l d i n g s b o t h a p p l i e d t o i n t e r r o g a t i o n s which w e r e conducted a f t e r t h e s u s p e c t had been t a k e n t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n . However, i n 1969, t h e Supreme C o u r t a p p l i e d t h e Miranda r u l e t o a n i n t e r r o g a t i o n conducted a t a b o a r d i n g house i n t h e room of a s u s p e c t . Orozco v . Texas ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 394 U . S . 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L Ed 2d 311. I n Orozco f o u r o f f i c e r s e n t e r e d t h e s u s p e c t ' s room a t 4:00 a . m . and q u e s t i o n e d him c o n c e r n i n g a s h o o t i n g , w i t h o u t a r r e s t i n g him o r i n f o r m i n g him of h i s r i g h t s . During t h e q u e s t i o n i n g , t h e s u s p e c t a d m i t t e d t h a t he had been a t t h e r e s t a u r a n t where t h e s h o o t i n g o c c u r r e d and r e v e a l e d t h e l o c a t i o n o f h i s p i s t o l which was l a t e r shown t o b e t h e one used i n t h e s h o o t i n g . The Supreme C o u r t d i s - missed t h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s argument t h a t Miranda d i d n o t a p p l y t o t h o s e s t a t e m e n t s b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e made w h i l e t h e d e f e n d a n t w a s o n h i s own bed and i n f a m i l i a r s u r r o u n d i n g s . I n s t e a d , t h e C o u r t emphasized t h e words from Miranda which d e c l a r e t h a t t h e w a r n i n g s are r e q u i r e d when t h e p e r s o n b e i n g or q u e s t i o n e d i s " i n c u s t o d y a t t h e s t a t i o n - o t h e r w i s e deof h i in p r i v e d - -s freedom of a c t i o n 394 U.S. a t 327, 89 S.Ct. w significant w ~ . " a t 1097, 22 L Ed 2d a t 315. (Emphasis i n o r i g i n a l . ) I n t h e present case defendant argues t h a t t h e r a t i o n a l e of Orozco a p p l i e s b e c a u s e f o u r o f f i c e r s descended upon h i s p r e m i s e s a t once and w h i l e n o t t e c h n i c a l l y p l a c i n g him under a r r e s t , d e p r i v e d him of h i s freedom of a c t i o n i n a s i g n i f i c a n t way. The S t a t e f o c u s e s on t h e t i m e , p l a c e , and circum- s t a n c e s of b o t h t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h e s e a r c h and t h e making of t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s . I n p a r t i c u l a r it p o i n t s o u t t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s a r r i v e d a t d e f e n d a n t ' s home a t 10:OO a.m., t h a t d e f e n d a n t w a s n o t incommunicado and was i n t h e p r e s e n c e and company of h i s w i f e and s t e p s o n , and t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s d i d n o t a c t u a l l y i n t e r r o g a t e defendant about an a l l e g e d c r i m e b u t made t h e i r p u r p o s e known by s e r v i n g a s e a r c h w a r r a n t on him. Of p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e t o t h i s s e t of f a c t s i s t h e l a c k of q u e s t i o n i n g by t h e o f f i c e r s . I n B r e w e r v. W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 430 U.S. 387, 97 S.Ct. 1232, 51 L Ed 2d 424, t h e Supreme C o u r t h e l d i n a d m i s s i b l e t h e s t a t e m e n t s of a s u s p e c t who g a v e i n c r i m i n a t i n g e v i d e n c e even a f t e r he had been informed of h i s r i g h t t o remain s i l e n t b e c a u s e , a f t e r h i s lawyer had r e f u s e d t o p e r m i t i n t e r r o g a t i o n , h e was q u e s t i o n e d i n t h e lawyer's absence. I n B r e w e r , t h e defendant, while r i d i n g a c r o s s Iowa w i t h two d e t e c t i v e s , was q u e s t i o n e d once a t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e t r i p . Sometime l a t e r i n t h e journey he made t h e i n c r i m i n a t i n g s t a t e m e n t s . 97 S.Ct. a t 1236-37, 430 U.S. 51 L Ed 2d a t 432-33. a t 392-93, Having once a s s e r t e d h i s r i g h t t o s i l e n c e i n t h e a b s e n c e of h i s l a w y e r , t h e d e f e n d a n t c o u l d n o t a g a i n be q u e s t i o n e d a b s e n t a s t r o n g showing of w a i v e r . 430 U.S. 51 L Ed 2d a t 439-41. a t 404-06, 97 S.Ct. a t 1242-43, Thus, where q u e s t i o n i n g t a k e s p l a c e i n a c u s t o d i a l s e t t i n g t h e d i c t a t e s o f Miranda must be c a r e f u l l y followed. I n t h e same t e r m a s t h e Brewer d e c i s i o n , however, t h e Supreme C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e c a s e of Oregon v . Mathiason ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 429 U.S. 492, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L Ed 2d 714. In Mathiason it h e l d t h a t a p a r o l e e who v o l u n t a r i l y came t o a p o l i c e s t a t i o n was n o t s u b j e c t e d t o c u s t o d i a l i n t e r r o g a t i o n when h e was q u e s t i o n e d a b o u t a c r i m e b e c a u s e h e had been t o l d t h a t he was n o t under a r r e s t when t h e q u e s t i o n i n g began and was f r e e t o l e a v e a h a l f hour l a t e r when t h e i n t e r v i e w ended. 429 U.S. a t 495, 97 S.Ct. a t 714, 50 L Ed 2d a t 719. The C o u r t r e a s o n e d t h a t a n o n c u s t o d i a l s i t u a t i o n i s n o t " c o n v e r t e d i n t o o n e i n which Miranda a p p l i e s " s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e q u e s t i o n i n g t a k e s p l a c e i n a " c o e r c i v e environment": "Any i n t e r v i e w of o n e s u s p e c t e d of a c r i m e by a p o l i c e o f f i c e r w i l l have c o e r c i v e a s p e c t s t o i t , s i m p l y by v i r t u e of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r i s p a r t of a law enf o r c e m e n t s y s t e m which may u l t i m a t e l y c a u s e t h e s u s p e c t t o be charged w i t h a crime. But police o f f i c e r s a r e not required t o administer Miranda warnings t o everyone whom t h e y quest i o n . Nor i s t h e requirement of warnings t o be imposed simply because t h e q u e s t i o n i n g t a k e s p l a c e i n t h e s t a t i o n house, o r because t h e q u e s t i o n e d person i s one whom t h e p o l i c e susp e c t . Miranda warnings a r e r e q u i r e d o n l y where t h e r e h a s been such a r e s t r i c t i o n on a p e r s o n ' s freedom a s t o r e n d e r him ' i n c u s t o d y . ' I t was t h a t s o r t of c o e r c i v e environment t o which Miranda by i t s terms was made a p p l i c a b l e , and t o which i t i s l i m i t e d . " 4 2 9 U.S. a t 495, 97 S.Ct. a t 7 1 4 , 50 L Ed 2d a t 719. Thus, Miranda a p p l i e s t o a q u e s t i o n i n g which t a k e s p l a c e i n a c o e r c i v e environment i n which t h e s u s p e c t ' s freedom of a c t i o n h a s been s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e s t r i c t e d . From t h e f a c t s of t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t h i s freedom had been s o r e s t r i c t e d by t h e p r e s e n c e of t h e o f f i cers. However, t h e o t h e r c r u c i a l element of t h e Escobedo, Miranda, Orozco, and Brewer c a s e s i s m i s s i n g h e r e - - t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n i n g by t h e o f f i c e r s . is, A s was p o i n t e d o u t i n Miranda, a c o n f e s s i o n which i s t r u l y v o l u n t a r y i s n o t f o r e c l o s e d from evidence because made b e f o r e t h e person confess i n g h a s been warned of h i s r i g h t s : "Any s t a t e m e n t g i v e n f r e e l y and v o l u n t a r i l y w i t h o u t any compelling i n f l u e n c e s i s , of c o u r s e , a d m i s s i b l e i n evidence. The fundamental import of t h e p r i v i l e g e w h i l e an i n d i v i d u a l i s i n custody i s n o t whether he i s allowed t o t a l k t o t h e p o l i c e w i t h o u t t h e b e n e f i t of warnings and c o u n s e l , b u t whether he can be i n t e r r o g a t e d . There i s no r e q u i r e ment t h a t p o l i c e s t o p a person who e n t e r s a p o l i c e s t a t i o n and s t a t e s t h a t he wishes t o c o n f e s s t o a crime, o r a person who c a l l s t h e p o l i c e t o o f f e r a c o n f e s s i o n o r any o t h e r s t a t e m e n t he d e s i r e s t o make. Volunteered s t a t e m e n t s of any kind a r e n o t b a r r e d by t h e F i f t h Amendment and t h e i r a d m i s s i b i l i t y i s n o t 384 U.S. a t a f f e c t e d by o u r h o l d i n g today." 478, 86 S.Ct. a t 1630, 1 6 L Ed 2d a t 726. A s a p p l i e d t o t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , t h e h o l d i n g s of Escobedo, Miranda, Orozco, and Brewer do n o t r e q u i r e t h a t t h e s t a t e m e n t s of d e f e n d a n t be excluded from t h e prosecut i o n ' s evidence. Defendant was n o t q u e s t i o n e d . H e simply d e c i d e d t o a d m i t t h a t h e s t i l l had t h e f i r e a r m s . Where t h e e n t i r e s i t u a t i o n w a s f r e e from any c o e r c i o n o r d e p r i v a t i o n of freedom o f a c t i o n by t h e l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s and t h e s t a t e m e n t s were n o t t h e r e s u l t o f i n t e r r o g a t i o n , t h e r e q u i r e ments o f Miranda w e r e n o t a p p l i c a b l e . 429 U.S. a t 495, 97 S.Ct. a t 714, 50 L Ed 2d a t 719; Beckwith v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 425 U.S. 1612, 1616-17, Cir. Oregon v . M a t h i a s o n , 341, 347-48, 96 S.Ct. 48 L Ed 2d 1, 8 ; United S t a t e s v . Shelby ( 7 t h 1 9 7 8 ) , 573 F.2d 971, 975-76; United S t a t e s v . Long S o l d i e r ( 8 t h C i r , 1 9 7 7 ) , 562 F.2d 601, 603, n . 1 ( 2 ) ; Annot. 3 1 A.L. R. 3d 565, 676-80 (1970). The h o l d i n g s i n S t a t e v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t of E i g h t h J u d . Dist. (1978), Mont . , 577 P.2d 849, 35 St.Rep. 481, and S t a t e e x r e l . Kotwicki v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 166 Mont. 335, 532 P.2d 694, are n o t d i r e c t l y i n p o i n t w i t h t h i s case b u t lend considerable s t r e n g t h t o t h e S t a t e ' s position. I n t h o s e c a s e s t h e s t a t e m e n t s o r c o n f e s s i o n s made by t h e a c c u s e d o c c u r r e d w h i l e i n c u s t o d y . Due t o t h e spe- c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n e a c h , however, t h e c o n f e s s i o n was held admissible. I n t h e f i r s t c a s e t h e a c c u s e d made a s p o n t a n e o u s c o n f e s s i o n a f t e r he had been informed of h i s rights, Though t h e a c c u s e d was i n a p o l i c e v e h i c l e a t t h e t i m e h e made t h e c o n f e s s i o n , t h e p o l i c e had n o t e l i c i t e d a s t a t e m e n t as i n B r e w e r . 577 P.2d a t 854, 35 S t - R e p . a t 487. I n Kotwicki t h e d e f e n d a n t had n o t been informed of h i s r i g h t s t o s i l e n c e and a n a t t o r n e y , b u t t h i s C o u r t found t h e c o n f e s s i o n o r a d m i s s i o n a p p e a r e d uncoerced and s p o n t a n e o u s . 166 Mont. a t 344, 532 P.2d a t 698-99. n o r D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f E i g h t h Jud. D i s t . I n n e i t h e r Kotwicki d i d t h i s Court at- tempt t o expand t h e s c o p e o r a p p l i c a t i o n of Miranda beyond t h e f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e c a u s e remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s . W e Concur: ' Chief4 s t iC & % 'Ju ce & &A
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.
