STATE EX REL KOTWICKI v DISTRICT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12945 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1975 THE STATE OF M N A A e x r e l . , OTN ANTONIO KOTWICKI, Rela t o r , THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT e t a l . , Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Relator: W. W i l l i a m L e a p h a r t a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana F o r Respondents: L e i f B . E r i c k s o n , J r . a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Submitted : Decided: J a n u a r y 27, 1975 446 - 4 ,975 2 , Filed: ~ + t ,> ~ , , ; a- , , . ! I M . C h i e f 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 of r t h e Court. This i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding wherein r e l a t o r seeks a n a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t d i r e c t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , L e w i s and C l a r k County, r e q u i r i n g t h a t c o u r t t o r e v e r s e i t s o r d e r of December 4 , 1974, d e n y i n g a motion t o s u p p r e s s t h e e v i d e n c e s e i z e d by o f f i c e r s from r e l a t o r ' s p r e s e n c e on September 25 and 2 6 , 1974. Counsel f o r r e l a t o r was h e a r d e x p a r t e and t h e r e a f t e r a n o r d e r was i s s u e d c a l l i n g f o r a n a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g and s t a y i n g a l l m a t t e r s u n t i l t h e f u r t h e r o r d e r of t h e C o u r t . Counsel a p p e a r e d upon t h e d a t e f i x e d f o r t h e h e a r i n g , b r i e f s w e r e f i l e d and responde n t c o u r t f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s b e c a u s e r e l a t o r had a d e q u a t e r e l i e f by a p p e a l . See S t a t e e x r e l . L a F l e s c h , 592 P.2d 1403, 31 St.Rep. The f a c t s a r e : Mont . I 772. An o f f i c e r of t h e Montana Highway P a t r o l was working r a d a r on I n t e r s t a t e highway 1 5 , n o r t h of Helena on September 25, 1974, a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 9:30 p.m., t r a v e l i n g a b o u t 70 m.p.h. was s i g h t e d . when a v e h i c l e The o f f i c e r pursued and s t o p p e d t h e v e h i c l e and a d v i s e d t h e d r i v e r , r e l a t o r h e r e , t h a t he had been s t o p p e d f o r d r i v i n g i n e x c e s s of t h e n i g h t t i m e speed limit. posted. F u r t h e r t h a t a n a p p e a r a n c e bond of $15 would have t o be The amount i s a s t a n d a r d bond i n such c a s e s . Relator c o u l d n o t p o s t bond, a d v i s i n g t h e o f f i c e r t h a t he was unemployed and h i s o n l y Montana a d d r e s s was G e n e r a l D e l i v e r y , C o l s t r i p . d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e was from o u t of s t a t e . His Following s t a n d a r d pro- c e d u r e , r e l a t o r w a s p l a c e d under a r r e s t . Relator then drove h i s v e h i c l e t o t h e county j a i l . r e l a t o r was p e r m i t t e d A t the j a i l , t o phone a f r i e n d i n a n e f f o r t t o p o s t bond. After learning t h a t h i s f r i e n d d i d n o t have t h e money r i g h t t h e n and t h a t it would be a w h i l e , t h e d e p u t y s h e r i f f on d u t y informed r e l a t o r he would have t o be locked up. The d e p u t y s h e r i f f s e a r c h e d r e l a t o r p r i o r t o p l a c i n g him i n t h e c e l l b l o c k . I n t h e process t h e deputy s h e r i f f d i s c o v e r e d a s m a l l bag of p l a n t - l i k e m a t e r i a l i n r e l a t o r ' s r i g h t shoe. The d e p u t y l i f t e d it from t h e s h o e and i n p l a c i n g it on t h e c o u n t e r t o p i n t h e j a i l r e c e i v i n g a r e a , made t h e comment: "What d o w e have h e r e ? " The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h a t t h i s comment was made t o no one i n p a r t i c u l a r . However, r e l a t o r , t h i n k i n g t h e remark had been made t o him, responded by answering " M a r i j u a n a . " S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r r e l a t o r was p l a c e d i n t h e c e l l b l o c k and t h e n b r o u g h t back and f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e , a d v i s e d o f h i s r i g h t s under t h e Miranda d e c i s i o n . L a t e r t h a t evening a deputy county a t t o r n e y advised r e l a t o r of h i s r i g h t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o a s e a r c h of h i s v e h i c l e and r e q u e s t e d a waiver o f t h o s e r i g h t s and a c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h . Although r e l a t o r a t one p o i n t s t a t e d , "you m i g h t j u s t a s w e l l l o o k i n i t , i t ' s f u l l of m a r i j u a n a " , he s u b s e q u e n t l y revoked h i s consent. The n e x t morning r e l a t o r was a g a i n asked by t h e d e p u t y c o u n t y a t t o r n e y t o c o n s e n t t o a s e a r c h and i n such c o n v e r s a t i o n was a d v i s e d t h a t i n any e v e n t a s e a r c h w a r r a n t would be o b t a i n e d . A t t h a t t i m e r e l a t o r signed a permission t o search. The s e a r c h was t h e r e a f t e r conducted and t h e i t e m s s e i z e d a r e t h e s u b j e c t of t h e motion t o s u p p r e s s . R e l a t o r c o n t e n d s (1) t h a t h i s c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t f o r exc e e d i n g t h e speed l i m i t v i o l a t e s 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 and A r t . Constitution; 11, S e c . 1 1 of t h e Montana ( 2 ) t h a t h i s c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t a s a r e s u l t of n o t having s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s t o p o s t t h e a p p e a r a n c e bond v i o l a t e s t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e of t h e F o u r t e e n 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 ; ( 3 ) t h a t a l l e v i d e n c e was e i t h e r i d e n t i f i e d o r d e r i v e d from p o l i c e q u e s t i o n s asked i n v i o l a t i o n of Miranda v . A r i z o n a , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L Ed 2d 694, and ( 4 ) t h a t h i s c o n s e n t t o t h e s e a r c h was n o t " v o l u n t a r y 1 ' under t h e s t a n d a r d e s t a b l i s h e d i n S c h n e c k l o t h v , Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2 0 4 1 , 36 L Ed 2d 854. R e l a t o r ' s c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t f o r e x c e e d i n g t h e speed l i m i t d i d n o t v i o l a t e t h e F o u r t h Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s Cons t i t u t i o n nor A r t . 11, S e c t i o n 11, of t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h e F o u r t h Amendment r e a d s : "The r i g h t of t h e p e o p l e t o be s e c u r e i n t h e i r persons * * * a g a i n s t unreasonable * * * s e i z u r e s , s h a l l n o t be v i o l a t e d * * *." The Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n r e a d s : "The p e o p l e s h a l l be s e c u r e i n t h e i r p e r s o n s from u n r e a s o n a b l e * * * s e i z u r e s . " * * * Under t h e s e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s , we must i n q u i r e i n t o whether r e l a t o r ' s c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t was r e a s o n a b l e under t h e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s c a s e . W h o l d t h a t it w a s . e Upon s t o p p i n g r e l a t o r , t h e highway p a t r o l m a n l e a r n e d t h e s e facts: r e l a t o r p o s s e s s e d an Arizona d r i v e r ' s l i c e n s e ; r e l a t o r was unemployed; t h e o n l y a d d r e s s r e l a t o r c o u l d g i v e was "General D e l i v e r y , C o l s t r i p " ; a n d , w h i l e C o l s t r i p i s i n Rosebud County, r e l a t o r was d r i v i n g a c a r l i c e n s e d i n Big Horn County. It is common knowledge t h a t C o l s t r i p i s t o d a y a boom town, a c o n s t r u c t i o n town, w i t h n e a r l y t h e e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n t r a n s i e n t . Given t h e s e f a c t s , i t was r e a s o n a b l e f o r t h e highway p a t r o l m a n t o bel i e v e t h a t r e l a t o r was a t r a n s i e n t , u n l i k e l y t o r e t u r n and pay t h e f i n e i f he was a l l o w e d t o d r i v e on down t h e r o a d w i t h o u t h a v i n g p o s t e d an a p p e a r a n c e bond. The highway patrolman was c l e a r l y w i t h i n h i s r i g h t s when he d i r e c t e d r e l a t o r t o proceed t o t h e c o u n t y j a i l and d i r e c t e d h i s incarceration. S e c t i o n 31-112, R.C.M. 1947, empowers a p a t r o l - man, upon making dn a r r e s t , t o d e l i v e r t h e o f f e n d e r : (1) t o t h e or n e a r e s t j u s t i c e of t h e p e a c e , d u r i n g o f f i c e h o u r s ; - ( 2 ) t o t h e or c o u n t y j a i l , - ( 3 ) d e l i v e r a summons t o t h e o f f e n d e r , accept a d e p o s i t f o r appearance. or (4) I n a d d i t i o n , t h e Montana Highway P a t r o l Manual d i r e c t s p a t r o l m e n t o r e f r a i n from a l l o w i n g o u t of s t a t e " v i o l a t o r s t o proceed w i t h o u t f i r s t s e t t i n g and a c c e p t i n g a n a p p e a r a n c e bond". Even i f it be conceded t h a t r e l a t o r was n o t an " o u t of s t a t e v i o l a t o r " , where t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e s u c h t h a t t h e v i o l a t o r d o e s n o t have t h e c a s h f o r t h e a p p e a r a n c e bond on h i s p e r s o n , i t i s n o t d u r i n g o f f i c e h o u r s f o r t h e j u s t i c e s of t h e p e a c e , and i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e v i o l a t o r w i l l honor a summons, t h e p a t r o l m a n p r o p e r l y e x e r c i s e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n del i v e r i n g r e l a t o r t o t h e county j a i l . Relator contends t h a t a reasonable a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e booking and j a i l i n g of r e l a t o r would have been t o a l l o w r e l a t o r t o w a i t i n t h e lobby u n t i l h i s f r i e n d a r r i v e d w i t h t h e bond money. Even conceding t h e p a t r o l m a n had n o t h i n g b e t t e r t o do t h a n t o watch r e l a t o r , t h e r e was n o t h i n g a t t h a t t i m e t o a s s u r e t h e p a t r o l m a n t h a t r e l a t o r ' s f r i e n d would show up i n t h e h a l f hour o r f o r t y - f i v e m i n u t e s i n which he d i d . The p a t r o l m a n q u i t e p o s s - i b l y might have had t o watch o v e r r e l a t o r f o r an hour o r two and s t i l l had t o book and j a i l r e l a t o r i f h i s f r i e n d n e v e r showed up. This uncertain "babysitting" is unreasonable. R e l a t o r concedes t h e s t a t e h a s a n i n t e r e s t i n c o l l e c t i n g f i n e s f o r speeding v i o l a t i o n s . However, r e l a t o r d o e s n o t p r e - s e n t any v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e t o t a k i n g t h e o f f e n d e r i n t o c u s t o d y , which would e n s u r e t h e c o l l e c t i o n of t h e s e f i n e s when t h e circums t a n c e s a r e such t h a t t h e o f f e n d e r i s u n l i k e l y t o r e t u r n and pay the fine. R e l a t o r ' s a r r e s t was a n a r r e s t f o r a t r a f f i c o f f e n s e . I t was n o t an a r r e s t f o r a c r i m e i n v o l v i n g moral t u r p i t u d e , which a r r e s t i n i t s e l f might b l e m i s h h i s f u t u r e . That being t h e c a s e , we h o l d t h e s t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o l l e c t i o n of t h i s f i n e o u t weighed t h e r e l a t o r ' s i n t e r e s t i n b e i n g f r e e from t h i s c u s t o d i a l arrest. Neither does r e l a t o r ' s c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t f o r exceeding t h e speed l i m i t v i o l a t e t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment of t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . Re- l a t o r c o n t e n d s f i r s t t h a t h e was o n l y t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y when i t became a p p a r e n t t h a t he d i d n o t have s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s t o p o s t t h e bond; t h a t he was, i n e f f e c t , a r r e s t e d f o r n o t c a r r y i n g money. R e l a t o r r e l i e s on W i l l i a m s v . I l l i n o i s , 399 U.S. 2 4 1 , 243, 2 4 4 ; 90 S . C t . 235, 2 4 0 , 2018, 36 L Ed 2d 586, wherein t h e c o u r t concluded: " * * * when t h e a g g r e g a t e imprisonment e x c e e d s t h e maximum p e r i o d f i x e d by t h e s t a t u t e and r e s u l t s d i r e c t l y from an i n v o l u n t a r y nonpayment of a f i n e o r c o u r t c o s t s we a r e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a n i m p e r m i s s i b l e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n t h a t r e s t s on a b i l i t y t o pay * * *." H e f u r t h e r r e l i e s on T a t e v . S h o r t , 4 0 1 U.S. S.Ct. 395, 91 668, 28 L Ed 2d 1 3 0 , 1 3 3 , wherein t h e C o u r t a d o p t e d t h e view of f o u r members o f t h e C o u r t i n M o r r i s v . S c h o o n f i e l d , 399 U.S. 508, 90 S.Ct. 2232, 2 6 L Ed 2d 773, by s t a t i n g : " ' * * * the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a f i n e a s a s e n t e n c e and t h e n a u t o m a t i c a l l y c o n v e r t i n g it i n t o a j a i l t e r m s o l e l y because t h e d e f e n d a n t i s i n d i g e n t and c a n n o t f o r t h w i t h pay t h e f i n e i n f u l l . ' " R e l a t o r ' s argument i s t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e $15 i s t e c h n i c a l l y a n a p p e a r a n c e bond, i n p r a c t i c e i t i s t h e a c t u a l f i n e . at her t h a n a p p e a r , v i o l a t o r s f o r f e i t t h e bond and t h e m a t t e r i s dropped. S e c t i o n 32-21-157, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s t h e s t a t e h a s t h e o p t i o n o f p u n i s h i n g a t r a f f i c o f f e n d e r w i t h a f i n e o r w i t h imprisonment, but n o t both. A s s u c h , r e l a t o r a r g u e s , under T a t e , when t h e p a t r o l m a n o p t e d t o i s s u e a summons t o a p p e a r , h e c h o s e t o f i n e t h e r e l a t o r and was t h e r e b y p r e c l u d e d from i n c a r c e r a t i n g . h i m . However, t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h o s e c i t e d by r e l a t o r on a t l e a s t t h r e e g r o u n d s . F i r s t , the cases c i t e d by r e l a t o r i n v o l v e t h e c o n v e r s i o n of s e n t e n c e s r e c e i v e d from t h a t of f i n e t o imprisonment. Here, w e a r e i n v o l v e d n o t w i t h a j u d i c i a l l y imposed s e n t e n c e b u t w i t h a n a p p e a r n c e bond d e s i g n e d t o p r e v e n t t h e o f f e n d e r from e n t i r e l y e s c a p i n g punishment. Second, t h e c a s e s c i t e d by r e l a t o r i n v o l v e d i n c a r c e r a t i o n i n e x c e s s of s t a t u t o r y l i m i t s . N s u c h c l a i m i s made h e r e . o Third, e a c h c a s e c i t e d by r e l a t o r i n v o l v e s t h e i n d i g e n c y of t h e d e f e n d a n t whereby h e i s u n a b l e t o pay t h e f i n e . H e r e , t h e r e i s no c l a i m made t h a t r e l a t o r was s o i n d i g e n t h e c o u l d n o t pay t h e $15 bond, merely t h a t he d i d n o t have t h e c a s h i n h i s p o c k e t . In- d e e d , he was d r i v i n g a new 1974 a u t o m o b i l e . W h o l d t h a t t h i s c a s e i s n o t w i t h i n t h e r a t i o n a l e of e Williams, Tate o r Morris. The United S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s p e c - i f i c a l l y s t a t e d i n Williams: " * * * W have no o c c a s i o n t o r e a c h t h e q u e s t i o n e whether a S t a t e i s p r e c l u d e d i n any o t h e r circums t a n c e s from h o l d i n g a n i n d i g e n t a c c o u n t a b l e f o r a f i n e by u s e of a p e n a l s a n c t i o n * * * . I 1 The C o u r t i n Williams a l s o a n t i c i p a t e d t h e problem i n h e r e n t i n i t s d e c i s i o n i f a p p l i e d t o o t h e r f a c t s i t u a t i o n s , such a s t h e c a s e a t hand, when it s t a t e d : "The S t a t e i s n o t p o w e r l e s s t o e n f o r c e judgments a g a i n s t t h o s e f i n a n c i a l l y u n a b l e t o pay a f i n e ; i n d e e d , a d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t would amount t o i n v e r s e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s i n c e it would e n a b l e a n i n d i g e n t t o a v o i d b o t h t h e f i n e and imprisonment f o r nonpayment whereas o t h e r d e f e n d a n t s must always s u f f e r one o r t h e o t h e r c o n v i c t i o n . " When t h e f a c t s a r e s u c h a s t o r e a s o n a b l y i n d i c a t e t o t h e p a t r o l m a n t h a t t h e o f f e n d e r i s u n l i k e l y t o r e t u r n and pay t h e f i n e , t h e s t a t e must have t h e power t o e i t h e r t a k e t h e o f f e n d e r i n t o c u s t o d y o r t o r e q u i r e a n a p p e a r a n c e bond i n o r d e r t o be a s s u r e d t h e o f f e n d e r w i l l s u f f e r some punishment. W have p r e e v i o u s l y d i s p o s e d of r e l a t o r ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t hn s h o u l d have been a l l o w e d t o w a i t i n t h e lobby u n t i l h i s f r i e n d a r r i v e d w i t h t h e bond money. To have a l l o w e d r e l a t o r t o have proceeded on h i s way s i m p l y b e c a u s e he d i d n o t have $15 i n h i s p o c k e t would have r e s u l t e d i n t h e " i n v e r s e d i s c r i m i n a t i o n " condemned by t h e u n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t s i n c e a n o t h e r o f f e n d e r under l i k e c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h $15 i n h i s p o c k e t would have had t o p o s t bond, whereas r e l a t o r q u i t e p o s s i b l y c o u l d have e s c a p e d punishment a l t o g e t h e r merely by l e a v i n g t h e s t a t e . The c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s a r r e s t c o u l d have happened t o anyone--rich o r poor. R e l a t o r ' s i n c a r c e r a t i o n was n o t t h e r e s u l t of a d e n i a l of e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n based upon i n d i g e n c y , b u t , from t h e f a c t s , was t h e r e s u l t of b e i n g w i t h i n t h e c l a s s of p e r s o n s u n l i k e l y t o r e t u r n and pay t h e f i n e . Were t h e l o g i c of r e l a t o r t o be f o l l o w e d t h r o u g h , t h e n anyone u n a b l e t o p o s t any k i n d of a bond would have t o be immediately r e l e a s e d b e c a u s e t h e bond was d i s c r i m i n a t o r y a g a i n s t him. I n s t e a d , bond i s r e q u i r e d t o a s s u r e t h e a p p e a r a n c e of t h e a c c u s e d a t c o u r t . This i s a l e g i t i m a t e p u r p o s e which h a s been upheld and needs no f u r t h e r comment. R e l a t o r ' s second e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n argument i s t h a t he was n o t t r e a t e d t h e same a s o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s i n p r e c i s e l y t h e same s i t u a t i o n . O f f i c e r Kessner, who p i c k e d up r e l a t o r , t e s t i - f i e d t h a t d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d from J a n u a r y 1974 t o September 1974 he had s t o p p e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y twenty m o t o r i s t s f o r e x c e e d i n g t h e n i g h t speed l i m i t who were n o t a b l e t o p o s t bond on t h e s p o t . Of t h o s e a p p r o x i m a t e l y twenty m o t o r i s t s , f i v e were b r o u g h t i n t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e u n t i l t h e y c o u l d come up w i t h t h e money. Four of t h e s e f i v e o b t a i n e d t h e money w i t h i n a " v e r y s h o r t p e r i o d of time". Only one p e r s o n , o t h e r t h a n r e l a t o r , was i n c a r c e r a t e d be- c a u s e he was u n a b l e t o p o s t bond. R e l a t o r had t h e burden of proof t o show t h a t he was i n e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same s i t u a t i o n a s t h e f o u r p e r s o n s t a k e n t o t h e s h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e who were n o t booked and j a i l e d , b u t d i d come up w i t h t h e money w i t h i n a " v e r y s h o r t period of time". R e l a t o r h a s n o t s u s t a i n e d h i s burden, Relator merely p o i n t s t o f o u r p e r s o n s who w e r e n o t booked and j a i l e d , b u t w i t h no a t t e m p t t o f i n d o u t whether he was i n e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same situation. There was no a t t e m p t t o f i n d o u t how l o n g "a v e r y s h o r t p e r i o d of t i m e " was, and whether r e l a t o r ' s f r i e n d a r r i v e d within t h a t time. I n addition, r e l a t o r ' s counsel c u t off t h e t e s t i m o n y of O f f i c e r G s s n e r which might have answered t h e quest i o n a s t o why r e l a t o r was booked and j a i l e d when t h e o t h e r f o u r were n o t : "Q. Is i t normal p r o c e d u r e i f t h e y c a n ' t p o s t bond? W w a i t i n g f o r someone t o come them? A . No, I d o n ' t book t o p u t them i n j a i l h i l e t h e y a r e even and p o s t bond f o r them u n t i l - - "Q. Do you have any d e p a r t m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s a s t o when and when n o t you s h o u l d t a k e somebody i n t o c u s t o d y f o r a s p e e d i n g t i c k e t ? A . Yes, s i r , I do." The " d e p a r t m e n t a l g u i d e l i n e s " r e f e r r e d t o , d i r e c t highway p a t r o l men t o r e f r a i n from a l l o w i n g o u t of s t a t e " v i o l a t o r s t o p r o c e e d w i t h o u t f i r s t s e t t i n g and a c c e p t i n g a n a p p e a r a n c e bond". The g u i d e l i n e s d o n o t e x p l a i n whether a v i o l a t o r s h o u l d be booked and j a i l e d . Having d e t e r m i n e d t h a t r e l a t o r ' s c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t was v a l i d , i t f o l l o w s t h a t t h e s e a r c h of r e l a t o r ' s p e r s o n was a l s o valid. United S t a t e s v . Robinson, 4 1 4 U.S. 218, 94 S . C t . 38 L Ed 2d 427; G u s t a f s o n v . F l o r i d a , 4 1 4 U.S. 467, 2 6 0 , 94 S . C t . W e f i n d r e l a t o r ' s t h i r d contention, t h a t a l l evidence was e i t h e r i d e n t i f i e d o r d e r i v e d from p o l i c e q u e s t i o n s asked i n v i o l a t i o n of Miranda, t o be w i t h o u t m e r i t . Relator contends t h e d e p u t y ' s q u e s t i o n , "What do we have h e r e ? " was a s k e d p r i o r t o r e l a t o r b e i n g g i v e n t h e Miranda warning and t h u s r e l a t o r ' s answer, " M a r i j u a n a " , and t h e bag of m a r i j u a n a s h o u l d be s u p p r e s s e d . I n no e v e n t s h o u l d t h i s r e a s o n i n g r e q u i r e t h e s u p p r e s s i o n o f t h e bag found i n r e l a t o r ' s s h o e . That bag was d i s c o v e r e d p u r s u a n t t o a v a l i d s e a r c h , p t i o r t o any s t a t e m e n t s r e l a t o r made. s h o u l d r e l a t o r ' s s p o n t a n e o u s answer be s u p p r e s s e d . Neither A r e a d i n g of Miranda i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t a p p l i e s t o " i n t e r r o g a t i o n " of t h e defendant. I n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e was no i n t e r r o g a t i o n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h e q u e s t i o n of t.he d e p u t y was n o t d i r e c t e d t o anyone i n p a r t i c u l a r . F i n a l l y , we h o l d t h a t r e l a t o r ' s c o n s e n t t o t h e s e a r c h of h i s c a r was " v o l u n t a r y " under t h e s t a n d a r d e s t a b l i s h e d i n Schneckloth. Relator contends t h e circumstances surrounding h i s c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h p o i n t toward c o e r c i o n : On t h e n i g h t of h i s a r r e s t , he had r e f u s e d t o c o n s e n t t o t h e s e a r c h of h i s c a r ; h e c o n s e n t e d o n l y a f t e r h a v i n g s p e n t a n i g h t i n j a i l ; h e cons e n t e d o n l y a f t e r having been informed by a d e p u t y c o u n t y a t t o r ney t h a t a s e a r c h w a r r a n t c o u l d be o b t a i n e d r e g a r d l e s s of h i s c o n s e n t ; a n d , h i s c o n s e n t was o b t a i n e d w h i l e he was i n c u s t o d y . S c h n e c k l o t h h e l d t h a t v o l u n t a r i n e s s i s t o be d e t e r m i n e d from t h e " t o t a l i t y of t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s " . I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e circum- s t a n c e s n o t e d by r e l a t o r , t h e r e c o r d shows r e l a t o r s i g n e d a w r i t t e n " P e r m i s s i o n t o Search'' which r e c i t e d : " I , Ramon Kotwicki, have been informed * * * of m CONSTITUTIONAL R I G H T n o t t o have a s e a r c h y made of t h e p r e m i s e s and p r o p e r t y owned by m e and/or under my c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l , w i t h o u t a search warrant. "Knowing of m l a w f u l r i g h t t o r e f u s e t o c o n s e n t y t o such a s e a r c h , I w i l l i n g l y g i v e m permission y * * *.I' While r e l a t o r would u s e t h e n i g h t s p e n t i n j a i l t o show i n v o l u n t a r i n e s s , it was a n i g h t i n which r e l a t o r might r e f l e c t on t h e f a c t t h a t he had a l r e a d y t o l d t h e d e p u t y c o u n t y a t t o r n e y "you might j u s t a s w e l l l o o k i n i t , i t ' s f u l l of ~ a r i j u n a n a . "A l s o , r e l a t o r had p r e v i o u s l y , i n March 1 9 7 4 , been a r r e s t e d f o r c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n of dangerous d r u g s and had, a t t h a t t i m e , been f u l l y a d v i s e d of h i s r i g h t s for p u r p o s e s of t h a t p r o c e e d i n g . W hold, e 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 under t h e " t o t a l i t y of circums t a n c e s " p r e s e n t h e r e r e l a t o r ' s c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h h i s c a r was voluntary. F i n d i n g no e r r o r , 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 affirmed. ,,--,-,,,-2A-,;cLl,,,,,--,,-c------------ Chief' J u s t i c e W e concur: Justices / -. " V ~

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.