STATE EX REL GOULDING v DIST COU
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13061 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1975 STATE O M N A A EX REL F OTN ALLAN LEE GOULDING, 111, Petitioner, THE DISTRICT COURT O THE THIRTEENTH F JUDICIAL DISTRICT O THE STATE O MONTANA, F F and t h e HONORABLE M e JAMES SORTE, a s p r e s i d i n g JUDGE THEREOF, ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record : For P e t i t i o n e r : B e r g e r , Anderson, S i n c l a i r and Murphy, B i l l i n g s , Montana James J. S i n c l a i r a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondents: 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 John F. North, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a p p e a r e d , Helena, Montana Harold F. Hanser, County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana For Amicus C u r i a e : Thomas C . Honzel, a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Submitted: ,, .:. Filed : : , 3'(& , I)ec i d e d : J u n e 24, 1975 ,' ~ i l d 3 2% 397% M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s a p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l by a defendant charged by information w i t h t h e crime of c r i m i n a l s a l e of dangerous drugs. O May 6, 1975, a h e a r i n g was had on n a motion t o suppress evidence. D i s t r i c t Judge James S o r t e , s i t t i n g i n Yellowstone County, denied t h e motion t o suppress and t h i s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l followed. W i s s u e d an o r d e r s e t t i n g an a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g t o e determine whether t h i s Court should a c c e p t j u r i s d i c t i o n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t appeared by b r i e f and o r a l argument, a s d i d t h e Montana County Attorneys A s s o c i a t i o n , a f t e r l e a v e by t h i s Court t o appear amicus. W have t h e b e n e f i t of a f u l l t r a n s c r i p t of t h e h e a r i n g e on t h e motion t o suppress. Here r e l a t o r ' s s o l e c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e s e a r c h of h i s person was i n v a l i d because i t was made pursuant t o an unlawful a r r e s t . The b a s i s f o r t h i s a s s e r t i o n i s t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s who a r r e s t e d without a warrant had no probable cause. S e c t i o n 95-608, R.C.M. 1947, s t a t e s : II A peace o f f i c e r may a r r e s t a person when: "* * 9: "(d) He b e l i e v e s on reasonable grounds, t h a t t h e person i s committing an o f f e n s e , o r t h a t t h e person has committed an o f f e n s e and t h e e x i s t i n g circumstances r e q u i r e h i s immediate a r r e s t . 1 1 (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . - R e l a t o r ' s a r r e s t on t h e n i g h t February B i l l i n g s was t h e culmination of a s e r i e s of drug a r r e s t s by t h e B i l l i n g s p o l i c e i n an undercover o p e r a t i o n w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e of o f f i c e r s from Missoula County. The i n i t i a l drug c o n t a c t was w i t h one Charles Bertram who r e s i d e d i n t h e F i s h t a i l - N y e a r e a . agreed t o cooperate w i t h t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r s . Bertram Missoula County O f f i c e r Lambert and Bertram went t o Tommy Allen a t F i s h t a i l and purchased t e n pounds of marijuana. o t h e r twenty pounds. Allen agreed t o p i c k up an- Allen was paid $810 i n marked money from t h e A meeting f o r l a t e r i n t h e evening B i l l i n g s p o l i c e department. was s e t up a t Coulson Park, on t h e o u t s k i r t s of B i l l i n g s . scheduled, a t 8:25 p.m. As t h a t evening, Allen appeared a t Coulson Park and o f f e r e d t o s e l l marijuana. He was a r r e s t e d and searched. He d i d n o t have t h e marked money b u t t o l d t h e o f f i c e r s t h a t he had obtained t h e marijuana from r e l a t o r ; had paid him w i t h t h e money he had r e c e i v e d from Bertram and Lambert; t h a t r e l a t o r had placed t h e money i n h i s b o o t ; t h a t r e l a t o r had s u p p l i e d him w i t h t h e marijuana and took t h e money; t h a t t h e r e l a t o r had done t h i s a t a c e r t a i n apartment of r e l a t o r ' s g i r l f r i e n d o r a t a n o t h e r a p a r t ment where he would now b e found. Within minutes t h e o f f i c e r s went t o t h e two apartments i n d i c a t e d by Allen and r e l a t o r was found, a r r e s t e d , searched, and t h e marked money found i n r e l a t o r ' s boot. r el at or's p o s i t i o n , a s s t a t e d h e r e t o f o r e , i s t h a t t h e a r r e s t was unlawful i n t h a t t h e informant Allen was n o t known t o t h e p o l i c e and t h u s was n o t known t o be r e l i a b l e . The r e l i a b i l i t y and c r e d i b i l i t y o f information i s a f a c t q u e s t i o n i n any given s i t u a t i o n . Paschke, I4on t . , I n a r e c e n t c a s e , S t a t e v. 527 P.2d 569, 3 1 St.Rep. 847, i n v o l v i n g t h e q u e s t i o n of probable cause f o r t h e i s s u a n c e of a s e a r c h w a r r a n t , t h i s Court d i s c u s s e d t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n , independent o f i t s source. W c i t e d J u s t i c e White's concurring opinion i n e S p i n e l l i v. United S t a t e s , 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L ed 2d 637, where i t was pointed out t h a t admissions a g a i n s t i n t e r e s t a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h probable c a u s e , even though r e l a t e d through a hearsay source. directly against interest. U.S. Here t h e s t a t e m e n t s of Tommy A l l e n a r e See: United S t a t e s v. H a r r i s , 403 573, 91 S.Ct. 2075, 29 L ed 2d 723. Here, Tommy Allen i s a c o - c o n s p i r a t o r o r even an accomplice. I n S t a t e v. Thorsness, Mon t . , 528 P.2d 692,694, 3 1 S t . Rep. 895, 897, i n d i s c u s s i n g t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of an a f f i d a v i t t o support a s e a r c h warrant t h i s Court s a i d : "In t h i s c a s e t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of probable c a u s e s u f f i c i e n t t o a u t h o r i z e t h e i s s u a n c e of a s e a r c h warrant t u r n s on t h e statement i n t h e a f f i d a v i t t h a t a 'source of known r e l i a b i l i t y ' t o l d p o l i c e t h a t Thorsness would be t r a v e l i n g through Missoula w i t h Cocaine and o t h e r drugs i n h i s possession on August 1, 1973. The quantum of information n e c e s s a r y t o permit t h e u s e of such hearsay i n e s t a b l i s h i n g probable cause was s e t f o r t h i n Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114, 84 S . C t . 1509, 1514, 12 L Ed.2d 723, 729: "'Although an a f f i d a v i t may be based on hearsay information and need n o t r e f l e c t t h e d i r e c t p e r s o n a l o b s e r v a t i o n s of t h e a f f i a n t , Jones v. United S t a t e s , 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L ed 2d 697 [78 A.L.R.2d 2331, t h e m a g i s t r a t e must be informed of some of t h e underlying circumstances from which t h e informant concluded t h a t t h e n a r c o t i c s were where h e claimed they were, and some of t h e underlying c i r cumstances from which t h e o f f i c e r concluded t h a t t h e informant, whose i d e n t i t y need n o t be d i s c l o s e d [ c i t i n g c a s e ] , was " c r e d i b l e " o r h i s information " r e l i a b l e . I I 9: [Emphasis s u p p l i e d ] . * *' he a f f i d a v i t h e r e c o n t a i n s no underlying circumstances upon which t h e informant based h i s conclusion t h a t Thorsness would b e t r a v e l i n g through Missoula w i t h c o c a i n e o r o t h e r drugs i n h i s possession on August 1. The a f f i d a v i t c o n t a i n s no statement a s It t o how t h e informant r e c e i v e d h i s information. cannot be determined i f t h e informant came by h i s i n formation d i r e c t l y o r whether he merely r e l i e d upon rumor o r r e p u t a t i o n . 11 The d e f i c i e n c y h e r e i s s i m i l a r t o t h a t found i n S p i n e l l i v. United S t a t e s , 393 U.S. 410, 416, 89 S. C t . 584, 589, 21 L.Ed.2d 637, where t h e Court s a i d : * If'* 5: The t i p does n o t c o n t a i n a s u f f i c i e n t statement of t h e underlying circumstances from which t h e informer concluded t h a t S p i n e l l i was running a bookmaking o p e r a t i o n . W a r e n o t t o l d how t h e FBI's e source r e c e i v e d h i s i n f o r m a t i o n - - i t i s n o t a l l e g e d t h a t t h e informant p e r s o n a l l y observed S p i n e l l i a t work o r t h a t he had e v e r placed a b e t w i t h him. Moreover, i f t h e informant came by t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n d i r e c t l y , he d i d n o t e x p l a i n why h i s sources were r e l i a b l e . [Citing c a s e ] I n t h e absence of a s t a t e m e n t d e t a i l i n g t h e manner i n which t h e information was g a t h e r e d , i t i s e s p e c i a l l y important t h a t t h e t i p d e s c r i b e t h e a c c u s e d ' s c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y i n s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l t h a t t h e m a g i s t r a t e may know t h a t he i s r e l y i n g on something more s u b s t a n t i a l than a c a s u a l rumor c i r c u l a t i n g i n t h e underworld o r an a c c u s a t i o n based merely on an i n d i v i d u a l ' s g e n e r a l r e p u t a t i o n . 111 With t h i s d i s c u s s i o n of t h e law i n mind, we examine t h i s case. Here, Allen p e r s o n a l l y d e a l t w i t h r e l a t o r . A l l e n was a co-conspirator. A l l e n ' s r e l i a b i l i t y was t h a t of an eyewitness and t o apply any e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e o r a r t i f i c i a l s t a n d a r d f o r probable cause f l i e s i n t h e f a c e of reasonable i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t Judge B a t t i n i n a memorandum and o r d e r d a t e d A p r i l 11, 1975, i n I n t h e Matter of t h e P e t i t i o n of Jon William Paschke and John Arnold Mason, CV-74-101-BLG, -- U.S. D i s t r i c t Court, D. Mont., n o t e d : ro rob able cause e x i s t s t o a r r e s t where t h e f a c t s and circumstances w i t h i n t h e a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r ' s knowledge and of which he has reasonably t r u s t w o r t h y information a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o warrant t h e o f f i c e r t o conclude t h a t an o f f e n s e h a s been o r i s b e i n g committed. C a r r o l l v. United S t a t e s , 267 U.S. 132, 162. I n s h o r t , probable cause i s a r e a s o n a b l e ground f o r b e l i e f of g u i l t . The q u e s t i o n of proof f o r t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f probable cause i s c e r t a i n l y l e s s than t h a t r e q u i r e d f o r c o n v i c t i o n . 1 II W f i n d t h e circumstances under which t h e i n f o r m a t i o n e was s u p p l i e d support i t s r e l i a b i l i t y : ( I ) The information was given by Allen a f t e r h i s a r r e s t and a f t e r he had secured a d d i t i o n a l marijuana from a source of supply i n B i l l i n g s . been given marked money---$810-a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t time l a t e r . f o r d e l i v e r y of more marijuana. participation. (5) (2) Allen had and d i d n o t have i t when a r r e s t e d (3) (4) Allen k e p t h i s appointment A.llen admitted h i s own A l l e n i n d i c a t e d t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e apartment where r e l a t o r could b e found. Here, Judge S o r t e was f u l l y informed of a l l t h e f a c t s upon which t h e o f f i c e r s a c t e d . was lawful. He c o r r e c t l y concluded t h e a r r e s t Accordingly, t h e p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y con- t r o l i s denied. ;, /chief Justice
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.
