STATE EX REL TOWNSEND v DIST COUR

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13154 TN THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1975 STATE O M N A A ex re1 F OTN RICHARD D. TOWNSEND, ., Relator, THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT O THE STATE OF F MONTANA, I n and f o r t h e County o f R a v a l l i and t h e HONORABLE JACK L. GREEN, p r e s i d i n g J u d g e , Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: For R e l a t o r : M i l o d r a g o v i c h , Dale and Dye, Missoula , Montana Michael J. Milodragovich a r g u e d , Missoula , Montana F o r Respondents : Douglas H a r k i n a r g u e d , Hamilton, Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: '!LL - 9/b September 30, 1975 DEC 1 3975 J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court Mr. . R e l a t o r Richard D. Townsend i s charged by I n f o r m a t i o n i n R a v a l l i County w i t h t h e o f f e n s e of c r i m i n a l s a l e of dangerous d r u g s , a f e l o n y under s e c t i o n 54-132, R.C.M. 1947. The Informa- t i o n r e s u l t s from t h e s e i z u r e of forty-two marijuana p l a n t s and a s s o r t e d p a r a p h e n a l i a by county deputy s h e r i f f s d u r i n g a s e a r c h March 31, 1975, of r e l a t o r ' s a p p a r e n t p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e . Prior t o t h e s e a r c h , a s u p p o r t i v e w a r r a n t was i s s u e d by a l o c a l magistrate. The v a l i d i t y of t h a t warrant was c h a l l e n g e d by a motion t o s u p p r e s s under s e c t i o n 95-1805, R.C.M. 1947. Hearing was h e l d on May 23, 1975 i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and t h e motion t o s u p p r e s s was denied. A s t h e d e n i a l of t h i s motion i s n o t an a p p e a l a b l e o r d e r , r e l a t o r p e t i t i o n s t h i s Court 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 , s u p p r e s s i n g a l l evidence, w r i t t e n o r o r a l , which was obt a i n e d from him i n connection w i t h t h i s s e a r c h . I n determining t h e f a c t s upon which t h e m a g i s t r a t e r e l i e d t o f i n d probable cause f o r t h e c o n t e s t e d w a r r a n t , we c o n s i d e r two sources - I ) t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i t s e l f , and 2 ) c e r t a i n r e s p o n s e s t o o r a l i n q u i r y of t h e o f f i c e r made a t t h e time of t h e submission of the application. Except f o r t h e s t a n d a r d d e s c r i p t i o n s of t h e i t e m s t o be s e i z e d and t h e p l a c e t o be s e a r c h e d , t h e o n l y f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n s made i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n were: "An informant has a d v i s e d s h e r i f f ' s Deputies t h a t he has seen s e v e r a l marijuana p l a n t s growing i n s i d e t h e house. A second informant a d v i s e d s h e r i f f ' s Deputies t h a t he saw marijuana p l a n t s growing i n s i d e t h e house. The second informant has had p e r s o n a l ex e r i e n c e w i t h t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of growing marijuana. Pt The quoced paragraph c o n s t i t u t e s t h e o n l y w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s submitted t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e . A t t h e suppression hearing, it was r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e m a g i s t r a t e propounded s e v e r a l o r a l q u e s t i o n s co t h e a p p l y i n g o f f i c e r b e f o r e a u t h o r i z i n g t h e w a r r a n t . According t o t h e o f f i c e r ' s t e s t i m o n y , t h e s e q u e s t i o n s produced t h i s a d d i t i o n a l information; "Q. And a p p a r e n t l y i f I understand your testimony c o r r e c t l y , t h o s e t h i n g s which you deemed t o be import a n t and which h u l d be brought t o t h e ~ u d g e ' sa t t e n t i o n were t h a t two informants a l l e g e d l y saw marihuana i n Richard own send's house; t h a t one of them a l l e g e d l y could i d e n t i f y marihuana; t h a t t h e f i r s t had i d e n t i f i e d a c o r r e l a t i o n between what he saw and t h e photograph t h a t you showed him and t h a t b o t h i n d i v i d u a l s were u p s t a n d i n g citizens; is that correct? "A. I t sounds c o r r e c t , yes s i r . I I I t i s undisputed t h a t t h e r e was no c o u r t r e p o r t e r p r e s e n t d u r i n g t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , no w r i t t e n n o t e s were made o r s u b s c r i b e d t o by t h e a p p l i c a n t , and t h a t no o t h e r w r i t i n g was submitted t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e i n s u p p o r t of t h e a l l e g a t i o n t h a t probable c a u s e e x i s t e d . A t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g , i t was r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e f i r s t informant had seen t h e marijuana p l a n t s about two months p r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e w a r r a n t , and t h e second informant had seen t h e p l a n t s about t h r e e weeks p r i o r t o t h e i s s u a n c e of t h e w a r r a n t . This d i d n o t appear on t h e a f f i d a v i t , n o r was i t brought t o t h e a t t e n t i o n ox the magistrate. A d i s p o s i t i v e r u l i n g i n t h i s c a s e can be achieved through t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of two r e l a t e d i s s u e s : 1 ) Whether t h e a f f i d a v i t c o n t a i n e d f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t f o r a m a g i s t r a t e t o determine whether probable c a u s e e x i s t e d , and 2) whether o r a l s t a t e m e n t s made t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e a t t h e time of t h e submission of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n may be used t o c u r e a d e f i c i e n t a f f i d a v i t . The requirement t h a t t h e m a g i s t r a t e d e c i d e t h e e x i s t e n c e of probable c a u s e on t h e b a s i s of f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w an independent d e t e r m i n a t i o n , i s imposed by Montana law t o e n s u r e t h a t some n e u t r a l and detached e v a l u a t i o n i s i n t e r p o s e d between t h o s e who i n v e s t i g a t e crime and t h e o r d i n a r y c i t i z e n . This p r i n c i p l e was d i s c u s s e d i n Johnson v. United S t a t e s , 333 U. S. 1 0 , 68 S . C t . 367, 92 L ed 436, 440: "The p o i n t of t h e Fourth Amendment, which o f t e n i s n o t grasped by zealous o f f i c e r s , i s n o t t h a t i t d e n i e s law enforcement t h e support of t h e u s u a l i n f e r e n c e s which r e a s o n a b l e men draw from evidence. I t s p r o t e c t i o n c o n s i s t s i n r e q u i r i n g t h a t t h o s e i n f e r e n c e s be drawn by a n e u t r a l and detached m a g i s t r a t e i n s t e a d of b e i n g judged by t h e o f f i c e r engaged i n t h e o f t e n c o m p e t i t i v e e n t e r p r i s e of f e r r e t i n g o u t crime. 11 It cannot b e d i s p u t e d t h a t hearsay information may b e considered t o e s t a b l i s h probable cause. Mon t . 374 U.S. , 538 P.2d 339, 32 St.Rep. 23, 83 S.Ct. S t a t e s , 358 U.S. S t a t e v. Paulson, 786; K e r v. C a l i f o r n i a , 1623, 10 L ed 2d 726,739; Draper v. United 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L ed 2d 327. But when h e a r s a y information forms t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r a f i n d i n g of probable cause and 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 e two-pronged t e s t s e t out i n Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 114, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L ed 2d 723, must be a p p l i e d and s a t i s f i e d : ** "* t h e m a g i s t r a t e must b e informed of some of t h e u n d e r l y i n g 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 he claimed they were, and some of t h e underlying circumstances 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 , s e e Rugendorf united S t a t e s , 376 U.S. 528, was ' c r e d i b l e ' o r h i s information 'reliable! " ; . See a l s o : 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. W f i n d t h e w a r r a n t i n t h i s c a s e t o be f a t a l l y d e f i c i e n t e i n several areas. F i r s t , t h e r e i s no s t a t e m e n t e x p l a i n i n g some o f t h e underlying circumstances from which t h e informant concluded t h a t t h e p l a n t s were i n t h e house o r t h a t r e l a t o r was i n some way connected t o t h o s e p l a n t s . The mere f a c t t h a t a person i s on premises where o f f i c e r s have reason t o b e l i e v e t h e r e a r e drugs does n o t , by i t s e l f , j u s t i f y an a r r e s t o r s e a r c h of h i s person. State ex r e l . Glantz v. D i s t r i c t Court, 154 Mont. 132, 139, 461 P.2d 193, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . S i m i l a r l y , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n c o n t a i n s no f a c t t h a t would connect r e l a t o r t o t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y . Without t h e showing of some c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y on t h e p a r t of Townsend, t h e r e can be no probable cause. 256, 260, 511 P.2d 15. S t a t e e x r e l . G a r r i s v. Wilson, 162 Mont. - The second p a r t of t h e Aguilar S p i n e l l i t e s t mandates t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e of probable cause be e s t a b l i s h e d only through a c r e d i b l e informant w i t h r e l i a b l e information. Again, t h e m a g i s t r a t e must be informed of some u n d e r l y i n g circumstances which demonstrate t h a t c r e d i b i l i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y . The a f f i d a v i t under s c r u t i n y h e r e , c o n t a i n s s t a t e m e n t s which a r e a t b e s t merely c o n c l u s o r y , and t h e r e f o r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h probable cause. Additionally, t h e a f f i d a v i t i s d e f i c i e n t i n t h a t it f a i l s t o a v e r t h e time when t h e a f f i a n t r e c e i v e d t h e information. Research has n o t r e v e a l e d a s i n g l e c a s e where t h e w a r r a n t was upheld w i t h o u t a statement showing t h e time when t h e f a c t s o r e v e n t s r e l i e d upon occurred. A a f f i d a v i t which omits a r e f e r e n c e t o t h e time of t h e n c r i m i n a l event cannot e s t a b l i s h probable cause. Rosencranz v. United S t a t e s , 356 F.2d 310; Kohler v. United S t a t e s , 9 F.2d 23. I n g e n e r a l agreement w i t h t h e s e a u t h o r i t i e s i s Poldo v. United S t a t e s , 55 F.2d 866,868, wherein i t was s t a t e d '!Time t h e a f f i d a v i t ' s observations *** of i s of t h e essence o f t h e a f f i d a v i t . " The time f a c t o r i s regarded a s an important element o f probable cause i n o r d e r t o prevent t h e i s s u a n c e of w a r r a n t s on vague, o r d o u b t f u l b a s e s of f a c t * 7v *. ' 1 11 loose, Anno. 100 ALR2d 525,526. I n Montana, t h e a f f i d a v i t must set f o r t h f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t a law i s b e i n g v i o l a t e d a t t h e time t h e w a r r a n t i s issued. S t a t e e x r e l . Stange v. D i s t r i c t Court, 71 Mont. 125, 227 P. 576. I n S t a t e v. Gardner, 74 Mont. 377, 381, 240 P. 984, t h i s Court r u l e d : "Neither t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n n o r t h e s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e showing must be made by d i r e c t evidence o r t h a t i t must b e s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y a c o n v i c t i o n . The law i s s a t i s f i e d i f , by l e g a l evidence, d i r e c t o r c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , i t i s made t o appear t h a t probable cause e x i s t s t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s t a t u t e i s b e i n g violated * * *. "* * * i t cannot be s a i d t h a t because a man commits one crime i t i s r e a s o n a b l e t o presume t h a t he w i l l commit a l i k e crime twenty-five days o r a month l a t e r . (Emphasis added). 11 A s t h e a f f i d a v i t h e r e t o t a l l y l a c k s any r e f e r e n c e t o time, e i t h e r d i r e c t o r c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , i t must b e h e l d void according t o t h e aforementioned p r i n c i p l e s of law. W now c o n s i d e r whether a d e f i c i e n t a f f i d a v i t may be e cured by responses t o o r a l i n q u i r y from a m a g i s t r a t e made a t t h e time t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s submitted. Relevant t o t h i s l i n e of i n q u i r y i s A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 11, 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n which provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : ** 'I* N w a r r a n t t o s e a r c h any p l a c e , o r s e i z e any o person o r t h i n g s h a l l i s s u e w i t h o u t d e s c r i b i n g t h e p l a c e t o b e searched o r t h e person o r t h i n g t o be s e i z e d , o r without probable cause, supported by o a t h o r a f f i r m a t i o n reduced t o w r i t i n g . " (Emphasis added). C o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e requirement of a w r i t i n g a r e t h e s u p p o r t i n g s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s , s e c t i o n 95-703, R.C.M. term 11 1947, d e f i n i n g t h e s e a r c h warrant" and s e c t i o n 95-704, R.C.M. 1947, l i s t i n g t h e grounds upon which a s e a r c h warrant may i s s u e . Here, i t i s respondents1 c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e o f f i c e r ' s sworn testimony t o t h e m a g i s t r a t e a t t h e time of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e warrant may be used t o supplement an a p p l i c a t i o n d e f i c i e n t on i t s f a c e . law. W f i n d t h i s conclusion t o b e unsupported by Montana e This q u e s t i o n was considered i n P e t i t i o n of Gray, 155 Mont. 510, 519, 520, 473 P.2d 532. There t h i s Court r u l e d t h a t 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 cannot be upheld on t h e b a s i s o f information n o t contained i n t h e a f f i d a v i t , t h e a f f i d a v i t i t s e l f providing t h e 11 e x c l u s i v e support" f o r such i s s u a n c e . I n doing s o , Montana joined t h o s e s t a t e s a d h e r i n g t o t h e s o - c a l l e d "four c o r n e r s " r u l e , s e t o u t i n Gray: "* 9~ * 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 s u p p o r t i n g a s e a r c h warrant must be found w i t h i n t h e f o u r c o m e r s of t h e a f f i d a v i t i t s e l f and r e f e r e n c e may n o t be made t o o r a l conversations W s e e no reason t o r e a c h e a c o n t r a r y r e s u l t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e p a r t i c u l a r l y , where a s h e r e , t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n s were unsworn, u n w r i t t e n , and unsigned. I I * * *. Cbntemporaneous oral declarations to a magistrate cannot be used to bolster an insufficient affidavit in the attempt to establish probable cause, unless such declarations are sworn, signed, reduced to writing, and made a part of the affidavit. Relator's petition for writ of supervisory control is granted. The aforementioned evidence is suppressed. We Concur:

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.