STATE v ULRICH

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-29 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 STATE OF b1ONTANA, Plaintiff and Appellant, JOEL JON ULRICH, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead, Honorable Robert Sykes, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike Greely, Attorney General, Helena, Montana Ted 0 . Lympus, County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana Dennis J. Hester argued, Deputy County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent : Daley, Sherlock & Nardi, Kalispell, Montana Stephen J. Nardi argued, Kalispell, Montana Submitted: Filed: r I m February 28, 1980 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . his i s a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y a p p e a l by t h e S t a t e o f Montana from a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i i c i a l ~ i s t r i c t , n and f o r F l a t h e a d County, s u p p r e s s i n g c e r t a i n e v i d e n c e i n t h e c a s e of J o e l J o n U l r i c h , who i s c h a r g e d w i t h t h e o f f e n s e of d e l i b e r a t e homicide. Testimony r e c e i v e d a t t h e p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g h e l d on August 1 0 , 1979, and a t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g h e l d on J a n u a r y 4 , 1980, i n d i c a t e s t h a t Carolyn Wiley d i e d i n h e r Columbia F a l l s t r a i l e r house a s a r e s u l t o f a g u n s h o t wound i n f l i c t e d i n t h e l a t e evening hours of J u l y 1 4 o r t h e e a r l y morning h o u r s of J u l y 1 5 , 1979. Death was c a u s e d by a s m a l l c a l i b e r b u l l e t e n t e r i n g t h e back of h e r head. A t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8:00 a . m . on J u l y 1 5 , 1979, O f f i c e r Gregory Dawson o f t h e Columbia F a l l s P o l i c e Department a r r i v e d a t t h e t r a i l e r house o c c u p i e d by d e f e n d a n t , J o e l J o n U l r i c h , and t h e d e c e a s e d , Carolyn Wiley, and l o c a t e d t h e body of M s . Wiley. During a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n conducted t h a t morning by O f f i c e r Dawson and o t h e r o f f i c e r s of t h e Columbia F a l l s P o l i c e Department, i n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d from i n t e r views i n d i c a t e d t h a t C a r o l y n Wiley and d e f e n d a n t had been l i v i n g t o g e t h e r f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h r e e y e a r s ; t h a t t h e y had been a r g u i n g t h e day p r e c e d i n g h e r d e a t h ; and t h a t d e f e n - d a n t was t h e l a s t p e r s o n s e e n w i t h h e r i n t h e t r a i l e r . A t a b o u t 2:30 p.m. t h a t same d a y , d e f e n d a n t U l r i c h walked i n t o t h e Columbia F a l l s p o l i c e s t a t i o n and a s k e d , " W i l l someone t e l l m e w h a t ' s g o i n g on .. .?" H e w a s taken t o t h e o f f i c e o f t h e c h i e f of p o l i c e and p l a c e d under a r r e s t . H e w a s t h e n g i v e n h i s Miranda r i g h t s . A t t h a t time, defen- d a n t s t a t e d t h a t h e was n o t g o i n g t o s a y any more u n t i l he saw a n a t t o r n e y . Defendant was a s k e d some q u e s t i o n s and s e v e r a l t i m e s informed t h e o f f i c e r s t h a t h e wished t o have an attorney present. During t h i s t i m e p e r i o d , O f f i c e r Dawson e n t e r e d t h e room, p r e p a r e d h i s equipment, and p e r formed a n e u t r o n a c t i v a t i o n t e s t upon d e f e n d a n t . The n e u t r o n a c t i v a t i o n t e s t i n v o l v e s r u n n i n g c o t t o n swabs o v e r t h e f i n g e r s , palms, and t o p o f t h e hands. The swabs a r e t h e n p l a c e d i n a s p e c i a l k i t and m a i l e d t o a s c i e n t i f i c l a b o r a t o r y f o r examination t o determine t h e p r e s e n c e o f barium and antimony, t h e r e s i d u e o f gunpowder. A t no t i m e d i d t h e d e f e n d a n t c o n s e n t t o t h e t a k i n g of t h e neutron a c t i v a t i o n t e s t . A t no t i m e up t o and d u r i n g t h e t a k i n g of t h e t e s t w a s d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n s e l p r e s e n t o r had he c o n s u l t e d w i t h c o u n s e l . A t no t i m e up t o and d u r i n g t h e swabbing of d e f e n d a n t ' s hands d i d h e v o i c e a r e f u s a l o r o f f e r any p h y s i c a l o r v e r b a l r e s i s t a n c e t o t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e n e u t r o n a c t i v a t i o n t e s t . N f o r c e of any k i n d o w a s used i n t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e n e u t r o n a c t i v a t i o n t e s t by O f f i c e r Dawson. U l r i c h was c h a r g e d w i t h t h e o f f e n s e of d e l i b e r a t e homicide by c o m p l a i n t d a t e d J u l y 1 6 , 1979. p l e a of n o t g u i l t y . H e has entered a On December 26, 1979, d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a motion t o s u p p r e s s t h e r e s u l t s of t h e n e u t r o n a c t i v a t i o n t e s t on t h e grounds t h a t i t was a n u n r e a s o n a b l e and i l l e g a l s e a r c h and s e i z u r e under t h e F o u r t h Amendment. He also s o u g h t t o s u p p r e s s o t h e r e v i d e n c e a s b e i n g i n v i o l a t i o n of h i s r i g h t s a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n under t h e F i f t h Amendment and Miranda, and i n v i o l a t i o n of h i s S i x t h Amendment r i g h t t o c o u n s e l . A h e a r i n g on t h e motion t o s u p p r e s s was h e l d on J a n u a r y 4 , 1 9 8 0 , a t which t i m e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t made f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and o r d e r e d c e r t a i n i t e m s of evidence suppressed. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found a s a m a t t e r of law t h a t t h e a r r e s t of d e f e n d a n t a t t h e Columbia F a l l s p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t w a s l a w f u l and p r o p e r i n t h a t t h e r e w a s probable cause t o a r r e s t defendant a t t h a t t i m e . The C o u r t a l s o d e t e r m i n e d a s a m a t t e r o f law t h a t t h e t a k i n g of t h e neutron a c t i v a t i o n test without having a f f o r d e d defendant h i s r i g h t t o c o u n s e l and w i t h o u t o b t a i n i n g h i s a f f i r m a t i v e c o n s e n t v i o l a t e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . Such e v i d e n c e obtained w a s thereby ordered suppressed. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s , however, a r e u n c l e a r a s t o t h e s p e c i f i c l e g a l b a s i s f o r s u p p r e s s i n g t h e r e s u l t s of t h e n e u t r o n a c t i v a t i o n test. P u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 46-20-103(2) ( e ), MCA, t h e S t a t e of Montana a p p e a l s o n l y t h a t p a r t of t h e o r d e r s u p p r e s s i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e n e u t r o n a c t i v a t i o n t e s t and 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 review: 1. Whether d e f e n d a n t ' s F o u r t h Amendment r i g h t t o b e s e c u r e a g a i n s t u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s and s e i z u r e s w a s v i o l a t e d by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a n e u t r o n a c t i v a t i o n t e s t w i t h o u t a s e a r c h w a r r a n t immediately a f t e r h i s a r r e s t ? 2. Whether d e f e n d a n t ' s F i f t h Amendment r i g h t s a g a i n s t s e l f - i n c r i m i n a t i o n w e r e v i o l a t e d by a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e neutron activation test? 3. Whether d e f e n d a n t ' s S i x t h Amendment r i g h t t o coun- s e l a p p l i e s t o t h e administration of t h e neutron a c t i v a t i o n test? The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a n e u t r o n a c t i v a t i o n t e s t by p o l i c e o f f i c e r s upon d e f e n d a n t a f t e r a l a w f u l and p r o p e r a r r e s t i s w i t h i n t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e o f f i c e r ' s r i g h t t o search t h e defendant's person i n c i d e n t t o a l a w f u l a r r e s t under t h e F o u r t h Amendment of t h e u n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n and under s e c t i o n s 46-5-102(4) 1 0 1 ( 1 ) , MCA. and 46-5- The manner of s e a r c h w a s r e a s o n a b l e under t h e s t a n d a r d s s e t f o r t h i n Schmerber v . C a l i f o r n i a ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U.S. 757, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 16 L.Ed.2d 908. The F o u r t h Amend- ment d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t a l l s e a r c h e s and i n t r u s i o n s , o n l y t h o s e "which a r e n o t j u s t i f i e d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , o r which a r e made i n a n improper manner," i . e . , Schmerber, 384 U.S. "unreasonable." a t 768. Defendant c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o m e e t i t s burden of proof a t t h e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g t o make an a f f i r m a t i v e showing t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e s e i z e d by t h e n e u t r o n a c t i v a t i o n t e s t c o u l d o r would have been d e s t r o y e d o r l o s t had a s e a r c h w a r r a n t been o b t a i n e d , c i t i n g Cupp v . Murphy ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 4 1 2 U.S. 291, 93 S.Ct. 2000, 36 L.Ed.2d s u p r a ; and S t a t e v. C r i p p s ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 312, 35 St.Rep. 967. Mont. 900; Schmerber, , 582 P.2d Therefore, t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly s u p p r e s s e d any e v i d e n c e r e l a t i n g t o t h e t a k i n g of o r r e s u l t s from t h e n e u t r o n a c t i v a t i o n t e s t . Furthermore, defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e c o u l d b e no v a l i d s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o arrest b e c a u s e t h e r e was i n s u f f i c i e n t p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o a l l o w a w a r r a n t l e s s a r r e s t , and d e f e n d a n t ' s a r r e s t w a s t h e r e f o r e unlawful. F i r s t , w e t a k e n o t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t found p r o b a b l e c a u s e and a l e g a l a r r e s t . T h i s i s s u e h a s n o t been a p p e a l e d , and i s n o t b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t . T h i s a p p e a l c o n c e r n s t h e p e r m i s s i b l e s c o p e of a w a r r a n t - less s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o a r r e s t where t h e m a t e r i a l s e i z e d from t h e p e r s o n of t h e d e f e n d a n t c o n s t i t u t e s e v i d e n c e of t h e offense. " I t i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t a search incident t o a lawful a r r e s t i s a t r a d i t i o n a l exception t o t h e warrant r e q u i r e m e n t of t h e F o u r t h Amendment." u n i t e d S t a t e s v. Robinson ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 4 1 4 U.S. 427. 218, 224, 94 S.Ct. 467, 38 L.Ed.2d S e e a l s o U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Edwards ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 415 U.S. 800, 802, 94 S.Ct. 1234, 39 L.Ed.2d 771. A search incident t o a l a w f u l a r r e s t r e q u i r e s no a d d i t i o n a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n i f i t i s w i t h i n t h e p e r m i s s i b l e s c o p e , Robinson, 4 1 4 U.S. at 235, and t h e r e i s no r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e S t a t e make a showing t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e i s d e s t r u c t i b l e . "The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f a s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o a r r e s t d o e s n o t depend on whether t h e r e i s any i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e p e r s o n a r r e s t e d p o s s e s s e s weapons o r e v i d e n c e . The f a c t of a lawful a r r e s t , standing alone, authorizes a s e a r c h . U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Robinson Michigan v. Def i l l i p p o (1979) , U.S. , 9 9 S.Ct. 2627, 2631, 6 1 ~ . E d . 2 d 343. . . ." A d d i t i o n a l l y , a l t h o u g h t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e was e v i d e n c e upon d e f e n d a n t ' s p e r s o n t h a t c o u l d be d e s t r o y e d o r l o s t o v e r a p e r i o d o f t i m e w a s a f a c t o r c o n s i d e r e d by t h e C o u r t i n Schmerber and i n Cupp v. Murphy, s u p r a , t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h i s case w a s a l s o d e s t r u c t i b l e o r subject t o l o s s with the p a s s a g e of t i m e , a s w e r e t h e f i n g e r n a i l s c r a p i n g s i n Cupp and t h e b l o o d sample i n Schmerber. W are of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f a neue t r o n a c t i v a t i o n t e s t by p o l i c e o f f i c e r s upon d e f e n d a n t f o l l o w i n g h i s a r r e s t was w i t h i n t h e p e r m i s s i b l e s c o p e of a s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o a l a w f u l a r r e s t under t h e F o u r t h Amendment. To b e g i n w i t h , t h e F o u r t h Amendment d o e s n o t p r o h i b i t a l l s e a r c h e s and s e i z u r e s , o n l y t h o s e which a r e "unreasonable"; i.e., "which a r e n o t j u s t i f i e d i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , o r which a r e made i n a n improper manner." U.S. a t 768. Schmerber, 384 Any i n t r u s i o n i n v o l v e d i n t h i s c a s e w a s mini- m a l , and t h e s e a r c h and t h e manner i n which i t was conducted w e r e r e a s o n a b l e under t h e s t a n d a r d s s e t f o r t h by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n Schmerber and Cupp. In affirming the defendant's conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating Schrr~erberheld that the liquor, a majority of the Court in extraction from the defendant of a blood sample to test for alcohol as an incident to his arrest was not an unreasonable search. The Court compared searches of dwellings and "intru- sions into the human body," and went on to observe that the taking of a blood sample to prevent the destruction of evidence was justified by the emergency nature of the search: "We are told that the percentage of alcohol in the blood begins to diminish shortly after drinking stops, as the body functions to eliminate it from the system." 384 U.S. at 770. There is no doubt an affirmative showing was made in Schmerber, but it is highly questionable that this becomes part of the rule. In any event, we do not have an intrusion of the body in this case, so we view the matter in a softer light than the defendant and look to a more factually similar case for direction. In Cupp v. Murphy, supra, the suspect voluntarily appeared at the police station for questioning concerning the strangulation death of his wife, at which time the police noticed what appeared to be dried blood on his finger. The suspect had not been formally placed under arrest, although the police had probable cause to arrest him at that time. He attempted to rub the evidence off his hands after refusing to consent to the taking of a fingernail sample. Against his will and without obtaining a search warrant, the police took scrapings from the defendant's fingernails which produced incriminating evidence. The Supreme Court held that the search did not violate the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights: "We b e l i e v e t h i s s e a r c h was c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p e r m i s s i b l e under t h e p r i n c i p l e s of Chimel v . . Chimel s t a n d s C a l i f o r n i a , 395 U.S. 752 i n a l o n g l i n e of cases r e c o g n i z i n g a n except i o n t o t h e w a r r a n t r e q u i r e m e n t when a s e a r c h i s i n c i d e n t t o a v a l i d arrest . The b a s i s f o r t h i s e x c e p t i o n i s t h a t when a n a r r e s t i s made, it i s r e a s o n a b l e f o r a p o l i c e o f f i c e r t o e x p e c t t h e a r r e s t e e t o u s e any weapons he may have and t o a t t e m p t t o d e s t r o y any i n c r i minating evidence then i n h i s possession . The C o u r t r e c o g n i z e d i n Chimel t h a t t h e s c o p e o f a w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h must b e commensurate with the r a t i o n a l e t h a t excepts the search from t h e w a r r a n t r e q u i r e m e n t . . . . . .. ". . . The r a t i o n a l e o f Chimel, i n t h e s e c i r cumstances, j u s t i f i e d t h e p o l i c e i n s u b j e c t i n g him t o t h e v e r y l i m i t e d s e a r c h n e c e s s a r y t o preserve t h e highly evanescent evidence they found under h i s f i n g e r n a i l s . . . "On t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e of probable cause, t h e very l i m i t e d i n t r u s i o n undertaken i n c i d e n t t o t h e s t a t i o n house d e t e n t i o n , and t h e r e a d y d e s t r u c t i b i l i t y of t h e e v i d e n c e , w e c a n n o t s a y t h a t t h i s s e a r c h v i o l a t e d t h e F o u r t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments." Cupp, 4 1 2 U.S. a t 295-96. The r a t i o n a l e o f t h e s e h o l d i n g s i s t h a t t h e p e r m i s s i b l e s c o p e of a s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o a l a w f u l a r r e s t , when t h e o f f i c e r s are s e a r c h i n g f o r e v i d e n c e o f t h e o f f e n s e , i s r e s t r i c t e d t o where t h e e v i d e n c e s e i z e d w a s of such a n a t u r e t h a t i t w a s l i k e l y t o be l o s t o r d e s t r o y e d i f n o t immedia t e l y seized. C o n t r a r y t o d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n s , however, t h e s e c a s e s do n o t impose upon t h e S t a t e a burden o f making an a f f i r m a t i v e showing t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e s e i z e d w a s o f such a n a t u r e t h a t i t was l i k e l y t o be l o s t o r d e s t r o y e d i f n o t immediately s e i z e d . I n any e v e n t , t h e S t a t e i n i t s t r i a l b r i e f informed t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t a f t e r a p e r i o d of t i m e t h e p r e s e n c e of gunpowder r e s i d u e s on t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s hand c a n change and f i n a l l y be d e s t r o y e d s o t h a t t h e e v i dence i n f a c t disappears. Furthermore, t h i s Court has u p h e l d a f u l l body s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o a c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t i n State v. Cripps (1978), Mont. 582 P.2d 312, 35 St.Rep. 967, where the police had probable cause to arrest the defendants and found illegal drugs in one defendant's pocket and on the other defendant during a jailhouse search. We said: "It is well settled that law enforcement officers may make a full body search pursuant to a lawful arrest for purposes of protecting themselves or seizing evidence cf the crime." Cripps, 582 P.2d at 318. In the same case, a search of the defendant's car for illegal drugs conducted at the scene of the arrest was held improper "when there was no chance of defendant's harming the police officers nor of their destroying their evidence." 582 P.2d at 319. From the uncertainty of the trial court's order, we should comment beyond the Fourth Amendment to avoid any future delay in this matter. The administration of a neutron activation test upon defendant did not violate his rights under the Fifth Amendment because the Fifth Amendment protects only against compelling "evidence of a testimonial or communicative nature." Schmerber, 384 U.S. at 761. The gunpowder resi- dues taken from defendant's hands do not meet this criteria. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to these circumstances. An initial search of a defendant incident to arrest does not require the presence of counsel because the defendant's right to counsel attaches only at the time adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated against him by way of a formal charge. See Kirby v. Illinois (1972), 406 U.S. 682, 92 S.Ct. 1877r 32 L.Ed.2d 411. The judgment of the trial court is reversed on the one issue appealed from said judgment, suppression of the results of the neutron activation test. The cause is remanded for further proceedings. ), . dd + Justice We concur: s;&l wid weeQ C - Justice Justices Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy dissenting: The holding of the District Court is not unclear to me. It found that no reason existed for the police not seeking a search warrant before applying the neutron activation test: ". . . There is no showing that a warrant was not available under the procedure in Montana for securing same, nor is there any showing that the neutron activation test could not have been obtained at that time through proper request, and ips unfortunate; that the Court is of the opinion that such could have been taken within that time and it would have been permissible.. . ." Neither Cupp v. Murphy (1973), 412 U.S. 291, 93 S.Ct. 2000, 36 L.Ed.2d 900, nor Schmerber v. California (1966), 384 U.S. sect. -1 757, - - L.Ed.2d , case, and do not support the majority. are applicable in this In Ccpp, the Court found that the fingernail scrapings were evanescent; in Schmerber, the Court found the prejudicial evidence in the blood sample would disappear. no such situation. Here, the District Court found no There is - evidence here, as the District Court found, that the incriminating evidence would disappear before a search warrant could be obtained. To say that the State has no burden to make an affirmative showing that the object of the search might be lost or destroyed is to say that the State never needs to justify a warrantless search if the search reveals some incriminating evidence. Under that rationale, we can kiss the Fourth and Fifth Amendments goodbye.

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.