STRUNG v ANDERSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12813 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1975 NORMAN STRUNG and PRISCILLA STRUNG, P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , . L. D. W ANDERSON, HANK FEDDES , CARL SMITH and LES GEE, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellants : 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 : C o r e t t e , Smith and Dean, B u t t e , Montana Dolphy 0. Pohlman, J r . a r g u e d , and Kendrick Smith, a p p e a r e d , B u t t e , Montana Submitted: z Filed : - c 1 --Ek Decided: 2,'b J a n u a r y 1 3 , 1975 FEB 111975 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. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a summary judgment g r a n t e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County, i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t s , responde n t s here. A p p e l l a n t s a r e r e s i d e n t s of G a l l a t i n County. e n t s a r e L.D.W. Respond- Anderson, t h e n s h e r i f f of G a l l a t i n County and t h r e e d e p u t y s h e r i f f s of t h a t c o u n t y . On J u l y 2 3 , 1967, a s e a r c h w a r r a n t was i s s u e d a t t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e Bozeman c h i e f of p o l i c e and a t t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e G a l l a t i n County a t t o r n e y , by a j u s t i c e of t h e p e a c e , d i r e c t i n g r e s p o n d e n t s and p e a c e o f f i c e r s t o s e a r c h t h e home o f a p p e l l a n t s Norman S t r u n g and Priscilla Strung. Respondents had n o t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e i n v e s - t i g a t i v e work p r e p a r a t o r y t o r e q u e s t i n g t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t , n o r d i d t h e y p a r t i c i p a t e i n any way i n o b t a i n i n g t h e w a r r a n t . It was l a t e r d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t was e r r o n e o u s l y o b t a i n e d from a j u s t i c e of t h e p e a c e , n o t from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Respondents' d e p o s i t i o n s r e v e a l t h e y were accompanied by t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y and h i s s t a f f a l o n g w i t h c i t y policemen i n two s e a r c h e s f o r d r u g s . None of r e s p o n d e n t s , though p r e s e n t , d i d any of t h e a r r e s t i n g of i n d i v i d u a l s i n v o l v e d b u t a p p e l l a n t S t r u n g s were imprisoned a t t h e c o u n t y j a i l where t h e y were h e l d f o r s e v e r a l d a y s u n t i l b a i l c o u l d be a r r a n g e d a t t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y . A p p e l l a n t s were c h a r g e d w i t h t h e pos- s e s s i o n of d a n g e r o u s d r u g s , which c h a r g e was d i s m i s s e d by t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y on October 2 1 , 1967. Thereafter appellants b r o u g h t s u i t a g a i n s t r e s p o n d e n t s f o r f a l s e a r r e s t and f a l s e i m prisonment. The s o l e i s s u e h e r e i s whether o r n o t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g r e s p o n d e n t s ' motion f o r summary judgment. A p p e l l a n t s n o t e t h a t t h e w a r r a n t i n v o l v e d was i s s u e d p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 54-112, R.C.M. 1947 ( s i n c e r e p e a l e d ) . That ~ c a t u t e a s a unique s t a t u t e governing t h e i s s u a n c e of s e a r c h w wilrrants i n n a r c o t i c c a s e s . I t provided i n p a r t : " I f upon t h e sworn c o m p l a i n t o f a n y p e r s o n , it s h a l l be made t o a p p e a r t o a n y j u d g e o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t t h e r e i s probable cause t o b e l i e v e t h a t n a r c o t i c drugs a r e being * * * ke P t c o n t r a r y t o law, such judge s h a l l * * * i s s u e a warrant d i r e c t e d t o any peace o f f i c e r i n t h e c o u n t y commanding him t o s e a r c h t h e p r e m i s e s l e s i g n e d and d e s c r i b e d i n s u c h c o m p l a i n t a n d w a r r a n t , and t o s e i z e a l l n a r c o t i c d r u g s t h e r e found * * *. No w a r r a n t s h a l l i s s u e t o s e a r c h a p r i v a t e dwel-ling o c c u p i e d a s s u c h * * *." A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t from t h e v e r y f a c e o f t h e w a r r a n t , i t w a s o b v i o u s t h e j u s t i c e o f t h e p e a c e had e x c e e d e d h i s j u r i s - d i c t i o n i n i s s u i n g t h e w a r r a n t and t h a t respondent peace o f f i c e r s were bound t o know t h a t s u c h a s e a r c h w a r r a n t was v o i d and t h a t i f t h e y e x e c u t e d t h e same t h e y d i d s o a t t h e i r p e r i l . Having been p l a c e d i n j a i l , a p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h e o n l y d e f e n s e t o t h i s a c t i o n o f f a l s e i m p r i s o n m e n t was t h a t i t was d o n e (1) b a s e d o n t h e a d v i c e of t h e county a t t o r n e y and ( 2 ) p u r s u a n t t o a s e a r c h w a r r a n t , and t h e s e a r e q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t s o summary judgment should n o t have i s s u e d . F i r s t , w e n o t e t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t w a s v a l i d on i t s f a c e a s t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t p e a c e o f f i c e r s when i t was shown t o them by t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y when h e o r d e r e d them t o a s s i s t i n t h e search. I t was n o t u n t i l o v e r a y e a r a n d a h a l f l a t e r when t h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e v . Langan, 1 5 1 Mont. 558, 445 P.2d 565, h e l d t h a t only a d i s t r i c t c o u r t judge could i s s u e a s e a r c h warrant f o r n a r c o t i c s , t h a t t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t i n t h e i n s t a n t case w a s d e t e r m i n e d . I t i s t h i s C o u r t ' s o p i n i o n t h a t it would p u t t o o g r e a t a b u r d e n on l a w e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s t o make them s u b j e c t t o damages e v e r y t i m e t h e y m i s c a l c u l a t e d i n what a c o u r t of l a s t r e s o r t would d e t e r m i n e c o n s t i t u t e d a n i n v a s i o n o f constitutional rights. Under a f a c t s i t u a t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t i n Daly v . P e d e r s e n , 278 F.Supp. 88, 93, (D.Minn. 1967) had t h i s t o s a y r e g a r d i n g a c i v i l r i g h t s a c t i o n a g a i n s t two sheriff's officers: " ' I t would r e q u i r e law enforcement o f f i c e r s t o respond i n damages e v e r y t i m e t h e y m i s c a l c u l a t e d i n r e g a r d t o what a c o u r t o f l a s t r e s o r t would d e t e r m i n e c o n s t i t u t e d an i n v a s i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s , even where, a s h e r e , a t r i a l judge-more l e a r n e d i n t h e law t h a n a p o l i c e o f f i c e r - h e l d t h a t no s u c h v i o l a t i o n o c c u r r e d . " ' S o l o n g a s t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n d u c t stemmed from h i s r e a s o n a b l e b e l i e f a s t o t h e r e q u i r e ments of t h e law and was n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e i n any o t h e r way, he c a n n o t be h e l d r e s p o n s i b l e - - u n d e r t h e s t a n d a r d of l i a b i l i t y s e t f o r t h i n Monroe v . Pape--for t h e d e p r i v a t i o n of p l a i n t i f f ' s r i g h t s . "No one h a s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o be f r e e from a law o f f i c e r ' s h o n e s t m i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e law o r f a c t s i n making an a r r e s t q 1 . [ C i t i n g c a s e ] Thus, t h e a c t i o n of a p o l i c e o f f i c e r o a n n o t be t o r t i o u s when t h e o f f i c e r p r o c e e d s on t h e b a s i s of h i s r e a s o n a b l e , good f a i t h unders t a n d i n g o f t h e law and d o e s n o t a c t w i t h unreasonable violence o r subject t h e c i t i z e n t o u n u s u a l i n d i g n i t y . The f a c t s a l l e g e d i n t h e comp l a i n t demonstrate conclusively t h a t t h e defenda n t c o u l d n o t r e a s o n a b l y have f o r s e e n t h a t a d e p r i v a t i o n of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s might have r e s u l t e d from h i s c o n d u c t . Under such circums t a n c e s , t h e c o m p l a i n t must be d i s m i s s e d . ' " See a l s o : H a r r i v . I s a a c , 1 1 Mont. 1 5 2 , 107 P.2d 137; Wheeler 1 v . Moe, 163 Mont. 1 5 4 , 515 P.2d 679, 30 St.Rep. 985; Meinecke v . McFarland, 122 Mont. 515, 206 P.2d 1 0 1 2 . Here, t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t was p r e p a r e d and o b t a i n e d by t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ; s e r v i c e w a s n o t made by r e s p o n d e n t s though t h e y p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t h e r a i d ; t h e y were n o t i n v o l v e d i n a p p e l l a n t s ' a r r e s t a l t h o u g h r e s p o n d e n t Anderson, a s s h e r i f f , was s t a t u t o r i l y bound t o h o l d a p p e l l a n t s i n j a i l u n t i l t h e y made bond. There b e i n g no g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t w e f i n d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d summary judgment. Justices
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.
