STATE v BASSETT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14747 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, -vsRONALD LEE BASSETT, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Allen Beck argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent : Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Richard Larson argued, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana Harold Hanser, County Attorney, Billings, Montana James Walen argued, Deputy County Attorney, Billings, Montana Submitted: ~ecided: Filed: JUL 2 5 1980 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 of t h e Court. Mr. c his i s a n a p p e a l from d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n s of two c o u n t s of c r i m i n a l s a l e of dangerous d r u g s . Defendant Ronald Lee B a s s e t t was c h a r g e d by i n f o r m a t i o n f i l e d d i r e c t l y i n t h e Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , on J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1979, w i t h two c o u n t s of s e l l i n g c o c a i n e , i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n s 45-9-101 and 50-32-101 t h r o u g h 50-32- 313, MCA, and o n e c o u n t of p o s s e s s i o n of m a r i j u a n a i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n s 45-9-102 and 50-32-101 t h r o u g h 50-32-313, MCA. The c h a r g e s stemmed from a wide-ranging i n v e s t i g a t i o n of i l l e g a l d r u g a c t i v i t y i n t h e B i l l i n g s , Montana, a r e a i n which a Big Horn Deputy S h e r i f f , Atone R. (Tony) C a r r i e r w a s "on l o a n " t o Yellowstone County a u t h o r i t i e s working a s a n undercover i n v e s t i g a t o r . I n the investigation, the authori- t i e s r o u t i n e l y made u s e of e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e and monitoring devices. C a r r i e r was o u t f i t t e d w i t h a c o n c e a l e d microphone and a t r a n s m i t t i n g d e v i c e commonly known a s a body m o n i t o r . Carrier met w i t h d e f e n d a n t on a t l e a s t s i x o c c a s i o n s . On October 1 7 , 1978, C a r r i e r was i n t r o d u c e d t o d e f e n d a n t by R u s s e l l Bender. residence. T h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n was made a t B e n d e r ' s C a r r i e r had purchased a n a u t o m o b i l e from Bender and had a l s o made a r r a n g e m e n t s t o buy a q u a n t i t y of c o c a i n e a t Bender's residence. O u t s i d e t h e r e s i d e n c e , Bender and d e f e n d a n t c a r r i e d on a b r i e f c o n v e r s a t i o n which C a r r i e r could n o t overhear. A f t e r C a r r i e r gave Bender $ 8 0 i n c a s h , d e f e n d a n t handed Bender a s m a l l p a c k e t . The t h r e e men proceeded i n t o B e n d e r ' s l i v i n g q u a r t e r s , where d e f e n d a n t brought a mirror. Bender p l a c e d a p o r t i o n of t h e s u b s t a n c e from t h e p a c k e t on t h e m i r r o r and i n h a l e d i t . s u b s e q u e n t l y l e f t , t a k i n g t h e p a c k e t w i t h him. carrier C a r r i e r proceeded t o t h e Yellowstone County Courthouse where he t u r n e d t h e p a c k e t o v e r t o a d e t e c t i v e w i t h t h e county's Criminal I n v e s t i g a t i o n Division ( C . I . D . ) . The s u b s t a n c e was f i e l d t e s t e d a t t h e c o u r t h o u s e and showed p o s i t i v e f o r cocaine. Subsequent a n a l y s i s a t t h e s t a t e crime l a b o r a t o r y confirmed t h e s u b s t a n c e p u r c h a s e d w a s cocaine. C a r r i e r met w i t h d e f e n d a n t on October 1 8 , 1978, and a g a i n on October 2 6 , 1978. A f o u r t h m e e t i n g took p l a c e on November 3 , 1978, a t which t i m e d e f e n d a n t informed C a r r i e r t h a t he c o u l d g e t a q u a r t e r ounce of c o c a i n e f o r $ 6 0 0 . Arrangements were made f o r t h e s a l e . On November 7, 1978, C a r r i e r purchased f i v e p a c k e t s of c o c a i n e a t d e f e n d a n t ' s residence. T h i s p u r c h a s e was made from d e f e n d a n t . d e l i v e r e d t h e packets t o t h e C.I.D. Carrier o f f i c e s , and s u b s e q u e n t a n a l y s i s o f t h e s t a t e crime l a b o r a t o r y confirmed t h a t t h e packets contained cocaine. C a r r i e r made a f i n a l c o n t a c t w i t h d e f e n d a n t on December 4 , 1978. During e a c h of t h e c o n t a c t s , C a r r i e r was o u t f i t t e d w i t h a c o n c e a l e d microphone and body m o n i t o r . Carrier freely c o n s e n t e d t o t h e placement and t h e u s e o f t h e s e d e v i c e s . According t o t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d a t a s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g , t h e d e v i c e s w e r e used t o p r o v i d e p r o t e c t i o n f o r C a r r i e r and t o e n a b l e o f f i c e r s t o p r e p a r e a c c u r a t e r e p o r t s of t h e e v e n t s . Court o r d e r s permitting t h e monitoring w e r e obtained f o r C a r r i e r ' s l a s t t h r e e contacts with defendant b u t n o t f o r t h e f i r s t three. After pleading n o t g u i l t y t o t h e charges, defendant f i l e d v a r i o u s p r e t r i a l m o t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g a "motion t o s u p p r e s s based on i l l e g a l e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e and/or eavesdropping." A h e a r i n g on d e f e n d a n t ' s motions was con- ducted. The t r i a l c o u r t r u l e d t h a t t h e t a p e r e c o r d e d con- v e r s a t i o n s monitored w i t h o u t p r i o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n c o u l d n o t be admitted i n t o evidence. However, t h e c o u r t d e n i e d s u p p r e s s i o n of t h e t a p e r e c o r d i n g s o b t a i n e d w i t h p r i o r j u d i cial authorization. The c o u r t a l s o g r a n t e d a n u n r e l a t e d motion t o s u p p r e s s based upon an u n l a w f u l s e a r c h w a r r a n t , and t h a t r u l i n g l e d t o a d i s m i s s a l of Count I11 of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e misdemeanor p o s s e s s i o n c h a r g e . A t t r i a l t h e S t a t e i n t r o d u c e d and t h e t r i a l c o u r t ad- m i t t e d t a p e r e c o r d i n g s o f c o n v e r s a t i o n s on November 3, 1978, and November 7, 1978. N a t t e m p t w a s made t o i n t r o d u c e any o other tape recordings a t t r i a l . The S t a t e a l s o i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e d r u g s s e i z e d i n t h e s a l e t r a n s a c t i o n s of October 17 and November 7. The j u r y r e t u r n e d g u i l t y v e r - d i c t s as t o t h e two r e m a i n i n g c o u n t s . The t r i a l c o u r t d e s i g n a t e d d e f e n d a n t a dangerous o f f e n d e r and imposed a twenty-five year sentence. Defendant p r e s e n t s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w by t h i s Court: 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e t a p e r e c o r d i n g s of c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t were m o n i t o r e d w i t h t h e c o n s e n t of one of t h e c o n v e r s a n t s and p r i o r j u d i c i a l authorization. 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d i n t o e v i d e n c e t h e d r u g s t h a t were s o l d t o t h e undercover o p e r a t i v e and t h e r e a f t e r d e l i v e r e d by him t o t h e a u t h o r i t i e s . 3. Whether t h e r e was "governmental i m p r o p r i e t y " i n t h i s c a s e t h a t would r e q u i r e r e v e r s a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c tion. Defendant c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e u n a u t h o r i z e d e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e on October 1 7 , 18 and 26, 1978, w a s i n f a c t used t o s u p p o r t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e November 3, 1978, a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o c o n d u c t e l e c tronic surveillance. I n f o r m a t i o n a c q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e Novem- b e r 3, 1978, a u t h o r i z e d m o n i t o r i n g was i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l i n t h e form of b o t h t a p e r e c o r d i n g s a s w e l l a s t r a n s c r i p t s A s a r e s u l t of t h e i n i t i a l i l l e g a l r e c o r d i n g and thereof. t h e c o u r t ' s r e l i a n c e thereon, defendant contends a l l subseq u e n t a p p l i c a t i o n s t o m o n i t o r and a l l e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d therefrom w e r e t a i n t e d . W e disagree. Applying t h e p r i n c i p l e s announced i n S t a t e v . Hanley (1980) I , - Mont. 608 P.2d 1 0 4 , 37 St.Rep. 427, and e a r l i e r c a s e s , t o t h e f a c t s of t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s e v i d e n t i a r y r u l i n g s were c o r r e c t . W a r r a n t l e s s m o n i t o r i n g o c c u r r e d October 1 7 , 1 8 and 26. I n e a c h i n s t a n c e C a r r i e r met w i t h d e f e n d a n t a t d e f e n d a n t ' s residence. The t r i a l c o u r t c o r r e c t l y g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o s u p p r e s s t h e r e c o r d i n g s made of c o n v e r s a t i o n s t h a t w e r e m o n i t o r e d on t h e s e o c c a s i o n s . Mont. - 582 P.2d 1216, 1222, 35 , v . Brackman ( 1 9 7 8 ) , St.Rep. This Court held i n S t a t e 1103, t h a t t a p e r e c o r d i n g s and t r a n s c r i p t s o b t a i n e d t h r o u g h t h e u s e of a n u n a u t h o r i z e d e l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r i n g d e v i c e w e r e p r o p e r l y s u p p r e s s e d on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g r o u n d s . The B i l l i n g s c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t o r s o b t a i n e d j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r t h e m o n i t o r i n g t h a t o c c u r r e d November 3, November 7, and December 4 , 1978. The t r i a l c o u r t p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d t h e t a p e r e c o r d i n g s of t h e November 3 and November 7 conversations. The r e c o r d i n g s of c o n v e r s a t i o n s m o n i t o r e d w i t h t h e c o n s e n t of one of t h e c o n v e r s a n t s and w i t h j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i t y a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o suppression. Hanley, s u p r a . (1979) See S t a t e v . Further, a s we noted i n S t a t e v. ~ r u b a k e r - Mont. , 602 P.2d 974, 36 St.Rep. 1915, t a p e r e c o r d e d s t a t e m e n t s may be c o n s i d e r e d d i r e c t e v i d e n c e o r c o r r o b o r a t i v e e v i d e n c e and a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e same t e s t s f o r a d m i s s i b i l i t y a s t h e d i r e c t e v i d e n c e of e y e w i t n e s s e s o r t h e t e s t i m o n y of w i t n e s s e s t o o r a l s t a t e m e n t s . The q u e s t i o n of a d m i s s i b i l i t y of t h i s k i n d of e v i d e n c e i s a matter f o r t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l judge. Defendant s p e c i f i c a l l y a s s e r t s t h a t a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n t o c o n d u c t e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e which i s based upon p r i o r i l l e g a l e a v e s d r o p p i n g may n o t s u s t a i n a subsequent lawful a p p l i c a t i o n . Defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e l a w enforcement o f f i c i a l s d i r e c t l y r e l i e d upon such informat i o n i n making a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e a u t h o r i z a t i o n o r d e r . The c o n v e r s a t i o n s were r e c o r d e d w i t h o u t d e f e n d a n t ' s knowlA l l e v i d e n c e , t h e r e f o r e , used a g a i n s t him w a s t a i n t e d edge. and s h o u l d have been s u p p r e s s e d p u r s u a n t t o t h e d o c t r i n e of " t h e f r u i t s of t h e p o i s o n o u s t r e e . " W f i n d t h i s f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n very similar t o t h a t e found i n Hanley. I n Hanley, C a r r i e r r e c o r d e d a t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n i n which t h e d e f e n d a n t had p a r t i c i p a t e d . No p r i o r j u d i c i a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r t h a t r e c o r d i n g had been sought o r received. C a r r i e r l e a r n e d of an impending d r u g transaction during t h i s conversation. Argument was made t h a t because t h e conversation w a s recorded without p r i o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n , a l l s u b s e q u e n t l y g a t h e r e d i n f o r m a t i o n and evidence w a s t a i n t e d . T h i s C o u r t r e j e c t e d t h a t argument and r u l e d t h a t t h e u n a u t h o r i z e d r e c o r d i n g s of t h e t e l e p h o n e c o n v e r s a t i o n s were " w h o l l y i n c i d e n t a l t o and d i d n o t a f f e c t t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l . " 608 P.2d a t 108. I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , C a r r i e r , w h i l e wearing a body m o n i t o r , conversed w i t h d e f e n d a n t and t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n was recorded. C a r r i e r had n o t s o u g h t o r r e c e i v e d p r i o r a u t h o r i - zation f o r t h a t recording. Here, a s i n Hanley, C a r r i e r ' s own p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n s of t h e i n i t i a l conversations supplied adequate independent i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p o r t i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r e l e c t r o n i c monitoring authorization. The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e o r d e r a u t h o r i - z i n g t h e m o n i t o r i n g r e s u l t e d i n t a p e r e c o r d i n g s which w e r e admitted a t t r i a l . T h i s a p p l i c a t i o n makes no r e f e r e n c e t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e e a r l i e r c o n v e r s a t i o n s w e r e monitored o r recorded. The a p p l i c a t i o n r e c i t e s o n l y t h e f a c t s C a r r i e r reported during h i s investigation. There i s no more d e r i - v a t i v e t a i n t i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h a n t h e r e was i n Hanley. The n e x t i s s u e r a i s e d by d e f e n d a n t i s t h a t t h e d r u g s introduced i n t o evidence w e r e not properly admitted. Defen- d a n t c l a i m s t h a t a s a r e s u l t of t h e i n i t i a l t h r e e i n c i d e n t s of u n a u t h o r i z e d e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , and t h e u s e t h e r e o f t o o b t a i n an order t o continue e l e c t r o n i c s u r v e i l l a n c e , a l l c o n t r a b a n d s e i z e d w h i l e p r o c e e d i n g under s u c h o r d e r s h o u l d have been s u p p r e s s e d . The d r u g s i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l had been bought from d e f e n d a n t by Carrier on two occasions--October b e r 7. time. 1 7 and Novem- Consentual p a r t i c i p a n t monitoring occurred each The m o n i t o r i n g of November 7 was a u t h o r i z e d by c o u r t o r d e r and, t h e r e f o r e , t h e d r u g s s e i z e d were n o t t a i n t e d by illegal activity. The c o n s e n t u a l p a r t i c i p a n t m o n i t o r i n g t h a t o c c u r r e d October 1 7 , 1978, w a s n o t a u t h o r i z e d by c o u r t o r d e r . This f a c t d o e s n o t a f f e c t t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of t h e d r u g s t h a t d e f e n d a n t s o l d t h a t day. Those d r u g s w e r e n o t d e r i v e d from and do n o t r e p r e s e n t " f r u i t s ' of t h e u n a u t h o r i z e d m o n i t o r i n g . T h i s C o u r t a d d r e s s e d p r e c i s e l y t h i s q u e s t i o n i n Hanley i n language t h a t i s a 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 a s i t w a s there: "The d r u g s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e d i d n o t der i v e from t h e m o n i t o r i n g and r e c o r d i n g t h a t occurred. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e law enforcement o f f i c i a l s obtained t h e drugs through a n i n f o r m a n t , n o t t h r o u g h m o n i t o r i n g and r e c o r d i n g . The m o n i t o r i n g and r e c o r d i n g w e r e i n c i d e n t a l t o , n o t t h e c a u s e o f , t h e ' s e i z u r e of t h e drugs.' The i n f o r m a n t w a s t h e i n d e p e n d e n t s o u r c e of t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e t r a n s a c t i o n of t h e d r u g s t h e m s e l v e s , and t h e f a c t t h a t t h e m o n i t o r i n g and r e c o r d i n g o c c u r r e d d o e s n o t a f f e c t t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of t h e e v i d e n c e . In a recent Mont. I c a s e , S t a t e v. R i b e r a ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 597 P.2d 1164, 1169, 36 ~t.~e~.92, 1298-99, t h i s C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d and d i s c u s s e d t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t must be answered when a n i l l e g a l s e i z u r e i s a l l e g e d - - t h a t i s , whether t h e i n i t i a l i l l e g a l i t y w a s a c a u s e i n f a c t o f t h e d i s c o v e r y of t h e evidence. I n t h a t c a s e , w e c i t e d Wong Sun v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 371 U.S. 471, 8 3 S.Ct. 407, 9 L.Ed.2d 4 4 1 . Here t h e m o n i t o r i n g and r e c o r d i n g was n o t a c a u s e o f t h e d i s c o v e r y of t h e evidence; t h e r e f o r e , t h e exclusionary r u l e does n o t a p p l y even i f t h e m o n i t o r i n g and r e c o r d i n g were t o be deemed u n l a w f u l . The d r u g s w e r e p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . " State v. Hanley, s u p r a , 608 P.2d a t 110, 37 St.Rep. a t 435. The f i n a l i s s u e p r e s e n t e d i s whether t h e r e w a s governm e n t a l i m p r o p r i e t y i n t h i s c a s e r e q u i r i n g r e v e r s a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s conviction. Defendant a r g u e s t h a t C a r r i e r n e v e r m e t t h e s t a t u t o r y o r l e g a l r e q u i r e m e n t s t o be r e g a r d e d a s a d e p u t y s h e r i f f . Consequently, a c c o r d i n g t o d e f e n d a n t , C a r r i e r must be t r e a t e d by t h i s C o u r t a s a p a i d i n f o r m a n t f o r h i s p a r t i n t h e i n v e s tigation. I f t h e C o u r t a c c e p t s t h i s argument, it i s f u r t h e r argued t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h C a r r i e r ' s relia b i l i t y a s a n i n f o r m a n t a s r e q u i r e d by law, and t h e r e f o r e , d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r i s s u a n c e of a n o r d e r . T o r e s o l v e t h i s i s s u e w e look t o t h e n a t u r e of t h e a c t i v i t y i n which C a r r i e r was i n v o l v e d . Criminal drug i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a r e n o t t h e t r a d i t i o n a l l a w enforcement a c t i v i t i e s conducted r o u t i n e l y by p o l i c e a u t h o r i t i e s . In many i n s t a n c e s , t h i s t y p e of i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e q u i r e s non- t r a d i t i o n a l means w i t h i n t h e c o n f i n e s of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirements. C a r r i e r was engaged i n a s p e c i a l a s s i g n m e n t . H i s p o s i t i o n a s a n undercover a g e n t was temporary. He was a t t e m p t i n g t o p e n e t r a t e t h e c i r c l e s of d r u g d e a l i n g i n t h e community of B i l l i n g s . Undercover a c t i v i t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e n a r c o t i c s f i e l d , r e q u i r e s s e c r e c y and i n t e g r i t y of t h e a g e n t i n t h e e y e s of d e a l e r s . The s l i g h t e s t h i n t of p o l i c e a c t i v i t y would immediately t e r m i n a t e t h e c r i m i n a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n and p o s s i b l y p l a c e t h e l i v e s of t h e a g e n t and o t h e r o f f i c e r s i n danger. Montana law p r o v i d e s t h a t numerous r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e t o be met b e f o r e a n i n d i v i d u a l can q u a l i f y as a d e p u t y s h e r i f f . S e c t i o n 7-32-301, MCA. T h i s s t a t u t e s p e a k s t o law e n f o r c e - ment o f f i c i a l s who a r e on a permanent b a s i s . To r e q u i r e a l l l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c i a l s t o be f u l l y c l o t h e d w i t h t h e s e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s i n a l l i n s t a n c e s would s e r i o u s l y j e o p a r d i z e t h e s u c c e s s of law e n f o r c e m e n t i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s a s a r e presented here. T h i s s t a t u t e i s a r e s t r i c t i o n on a s h e r i f f ' s power o f appointment. The r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t C a r r i e r had worked a s a d e p u t y s h e r i f f on numerous p r i o r o c c a s i o n s . H e worked i n G a l l a t i n County a s a n undercover a g e n t f o r t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e f o r s e v e r a l months. L a t e r he was h i r e d by t h e s h e r i f f of Big Horn County and worked a s a d e p u t y s h e r i f f , and f i n a l l y was l e n t t o t h e Yellowstone County o f f i c i a l s t o work i n t h i s c a s e a s a deputy s h e r i f f . Carrier's prior acti- v i t i e s i n t h e G a l l a t i n and Big Horn o f f i c e s d e m o n s t r a t e w o r t h i n e s s a s a l a w enforcement o f f i c i a l . his This Court f i n d s t h e t e s t i m o n y of C a r r i e r ' s q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , e x p e r i e n c e and a c t i v i t i e s s u f f i c i e n t t o meet t h e s t a t u s of law e n f o r c e m e n t official. ". . . C a r r i e r was o f f i c i a l . . ." S t a t e v . A s w e noted i n an earlier decision, a p u b l i c employee, i f n o t a p u b l i c Hanley, 608 P.2d a t 1 1 1 . H i s o f f i c i a l d u t y i n v o l v e d main- t a i n i n g c o n t a c t w i t h persons involved i n t h e drug scene. The Yellowstone County C . I . D . o f f i c e r s acted reasonably, taking t h e s e f a c t o r s i n t o account, i n s t a t i n g t h a t C a r r i e r was a d e p u t y s h e r i f f when a p p l y i n g f o r a u t h o r i z a t i o n f o r e l e c t r o n i c monitoring. Applications f o r a search warrant a r e t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d i n a commonsense f a s h i o n . White ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 225 Kan. 87, 587 P.2d 1259. S t a t e v. I n t h e common- s e n s e u n d e r s t a n d i n g , C a r r i e r was a Big Horn County d e p u t y s h e r i f f even though h e may n o t have m e t a l l t h e t e c h n i c a l statutory qualifications. I n h i s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a n o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g t h e u s e of e l e c t r o n i c m o n i t o r i n g d e v i c e , D e t e c t i v e O r v a l Hendrickson r e l i e d on t h e d e t a i l e d o b s e r v a t i o n s of a f e l l o w d e p u t y o f f i c e r , Tony C a r r i e r . These o b s e r v a t i o n s i n c l u d e d p r i o r d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n s between d e f e n d a n t and Bender and i n d i c a t i o n s t h a t a d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n may o c c u r between h i m s e l f and defendant. I n t h e s e circumstances, t h e "fellow o f f i c e r " r u l e applies. A s t h e Supreme C o u r t n o t e d i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. V e n t r e s c a ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 380 U.S. L.Ed.2d 102, 111, 85 S.Ct. 741, 1 3 684, " [ o l b s e r v a t i o n s of a f e l l o w o f f i c e r of t h e government engaged i n a common i n v e s t i g a t i o n a r e p l a i n l y a r e l i a b l e b a s i s f o r a w a r r a n t a p p l i e d f o r by one of t h e i r number." C a r r i e r was "one of t h e i r number." The C . I . D . o f f i c e r s , t h e r e f o r e , c o u l d r e l y on h i s p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n s , a s c o u l d t h e judge r e v i e w i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. McCormick ( 7 t h C i r . See 1 9 6 2 ) , 309 F.2d 367, 867, 372; Weise v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 5 8 ) , 251 ~ . 2 d 8 6 8. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: S d , j . & < ., Justices . - . I :,- i i
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.
