STATE v WOOD

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 82-469 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1983 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , VS . BRIAN J . WOOD, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i s h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f G a l l a t i n Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana Marge Johnson a r q u e d , A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l . H e l e n a , Montana A. Michael S a l v a q n i , County A t t o r n e y , Bozeman, Montana For xespondent : Thomas M. Gaa a r g u e d , Bozeman, Yontana Submitted 5, 1983 3 Decided: July 18, 1983 JUL I 8 1983 Filed : Clerk Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e P r a n k I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f the Court. The S t a t e a p p e a l s t h e G a l l a t i n C o u n t y D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r s u p p r e s s i n g e v i d e n c e found i n a s e a r c h i n c i d e n t t o an a r r e s t f o r i s s u i n g a bad c h e c k . We reverse. Between J u l y 1 7 , 1 9 8 1 , a n d J u l y 26, i s s u e d f o u r c h e c k s t h a t t o t a l e d $49.97, 10, 1981, and O c t o b e r t o t a l e d $181.79. 30, 1981, and between October issued n i n e more that these checks w a s returned t o t h e Each o f p a y e e b e c a u s e of he 1 9 8 1 , B r i a n Wood i n s u f f i c i e n t f u n d s i n Wood's a c c o u n t . The p a y e e s d i d n o t c o n t a c t Wood. On November 2 3 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e j u s t i c e o f t h e p e a c e i s s u e d an a r r e s t w a r r a n t check. There f o r Wood on t h e c h a r g e o f were no previous efforts i s s u i n g a bad to secure his p r e s e n c e t o a n s w e r t h e c h a r g e o r p o s t bond. A t Officer approximately David Peterson a.m. 7:30 of the on December Gallatin 4, 1981, sheriff's No o f f e r d e p a r t m e n t a r r e s t e d Wood a t h i s home. County t o accept bond ( $ 5 0 0 ) was made n o r was a " n o t i c e t o a p p e a r " o r summons tendered i n l i e u of a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t . D u r i n g t h e b o o k i n g p r o c e d u r e a f u l l s e a r c h o f Wood w a s c o n d u c t e d , a n d o n e gram o f h a s h i s h was f o u n d . 1982, On March 2 9 , i n f o r m a t i o n s were f i l e d c h a r g i n g Wood w i t h i s s u i n g a bad c h e c k and w i t h c r i m i n a i p o s s e s s i o n o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s , both f e l o n i e s . Wood p l e a d g u i l t y t o the District contraband on Court the i s s u i n g a bad granted basis his that the motion S t a t e v. 498, 39 S t . R e p . Carlson 802. (1982), to arrest, s e a r c h stemmed, w a s a n u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l under check. However, suppress the from which the invasion of privacy Mont . , 644 P.2d The l o w e r c o u r t r u l e d t h a t t h e S t a t e f a i l e d t o show a c o m p e i i l n g s t a t e i n t e r e s t f o r u t i l i z i n g t h e m o s t i n t r u s i v e means t o e f f e c t u a t e i t s i n t e r e s t . From t h i s r u l i n g the S t a t e appeals. The s o l e i s s u e f o r o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n is w h e t h e r a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t was proper i n t h i s case. Essentially, the State contends that the District Court mistakenly extended t h e Carlson d e c i s i o n t o f e l o n i e s . The Court, in traffic-related the Carlson, clearly misdemeanors. administration of limited ruling its to The i n t e r e s t s o f s o c i e t y i n justice greater is C a r l s o n s i n c e a f e l o n y is i n v o l v e d . here than in T h i s is a s u f f i c i e n t compelling i n t e r e s t t o j u s t i f y a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t . hold W e constitutional the arrest r i g h t of t h e apprehension state interest v. 656, Wood's arrests, is a compelling justifies " [ t l h e r i g h t of of Full custodial felony suspects a f u l l custodial This Court held Court District violation F i r s t of pursuant t o a warrant. Zander a f o r f e l o n i e s a r e proper. of that not privacy. s u p p o r t e d by a w a r r a n t , all, was i n S t a t e ex r e l . ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1 8 0 Mont. individual compelling s t a t e i n t e r e s t . privacy arrest 548, must 5 9 1 P.2d yield to a Such c o m p e l l i n g s t a t e i n t e r e s t e x i s t s where t h e s t a t e e n f o r c e s i t s c r i m i n a l l a w s f o r t h e benefit and p r o t e c t i o n citizens." 180 Mont. hension felons that of w i l l other a t 556, is p r o p e r benefit e n f o r c e m e n t of of all fundamental r i g h t s of 5 9 1 P.2d a t 660. enforcement citizens. of its The a p p r e - criminal laws Specifically, the l a w s p r o h i b i t i n g t h e i s s u a n c e of bad c h e c k s p r o t e c t s v a l u a b l e fundamental r i g h t s of c i t i z e n s . S e c o n d , C a r l s o n is l i m i t e d t o t r a f f i c - r e l a t e d misde- meanors. I n C a r l s o n t h i s Court a d d r e s s e d t h e i s s u e whether a f u l l custodial offenses. arrest was proper for misdemeanor traffic C a r l s o n was i n v o l v e d i n a t r a f f i c a c c i d e n t where- upon h e t o l d t h e i n v e s t i g a t i n g p o l i c e t h a t h e had a l i c e n s e b u t d i d n o t h a v e it w i t h him. a t e l y c h e c k on t h i s s t o r y . The p o l i c e c o u l d n o t immediLater, p o l i c e found d e f e n d a n t was d r i v i n g w i t h a r e v o k e d l i c e n s e ; t h u s , t h e c i t y c l e r k was told to mail two "notices to appear" to defendant d r i v i n g w i t h o u t a l i c e n s e and o b s t r u c t i n g a n o f f i c e r . for The n o t i c e s summoned t h e d e f e n d a n t t o a p p e a r o n March 11, 1 9 8 1 . The n o t i c e s were - m a i l e d and when t h e d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o not appear, the defendant. police obtained a warrant and arrested When t h e a r r e s t o c c u r r e d i n d e f e n d a n t ' s home, c o n t r a b a n d was o b s e r v e d . w a r r a n t and s e i z e d Police l a t e r t h e contraband. obtained a search D e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h c r i m i n a l p o s s e s s i o n o f d a n g e r o u s d r u g s and t h e f t , felonies. the all The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s u p p r e s s e d t h e s e i z e d e v i d e n c e because defendant's Fourth Amendment rights had been violated. T h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t e n t r y by t h e p o l i c e p u r s u a n t t o t h e a r r e s t w a r r a n t was u n r e a s o n a b l e a s t h e r e was no j u s t i f i c a t i o n o r exigency f o r a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t . Hence, the o b s e r v a t i o n of t h e c o n t r a b a n d was a w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h w h i c h i s a l w a y s presumed u n r e a s o n a b l e . 39 St.Rep. The misdemeanor C a r l s o n , 6 4 4 P.2d a t 504, a t 810. rationale for our holding t r a f f i c offenses. t h e r e w e r e l e s s i n t r u s i v e means Applied was to based on the such o f f e n s e s , t o accomplish the State's o b j e c t i v e ; t h e r e f o r e , no c o m p e l l i n g i n t e r e s t e x i s t e d f o r t h e State's invasion of Carlson's privacy. d e f e n d a n t was n e v e r n o t i f i e d of Specifically, the t h e t r a f f i c v i o l a t i o n s and t h e r e is a s p e c i f i c municipal p o l i c y t h a t p r e v e n t s a r r e s t s f o r t r a f f i c o f f e n s e s u n l e s s t h e accused does not respond t o notices. W e noted other options less intrusive than an a r r e s t t h a t t h e c i t y could have u t i l i z e d b u t d i d not. Further i n d i c a t i o n t h a t Carlson is l i m i t e d t o t r a f f i c r e l a t e d misdemeanors is found i n t h e l a s t p a r a g r a p h of majority opinion. the W stated: e ". . . i f w e w e r e t o s u s t a i n t h e e n t r y by the police o f f i c e r s a s reasonable, there would b e few i n s t a n c e s i n t h e s e r v i c e o f w a r r a n t s of a r r e s t f o r t r a f f i c - r e l a t e d o f f e n s e s when t h e o f f i c e r s would n o t g a i n e n t r a n c e i n s i d e t h e home. Few p e r s o n s a r e f u l l y d r e s s e d and r e a d y f o r t h e s t r e e t when t h e y a n s w e r t h e d o o r i n r e s p o n s e t o a knock. I n e v i t a b l y t h e s e a r c h would b e h e l d i n c i d e n t t o t h e a r r e s t , and n o t v i c e versa. The C i r c u i t C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e N i n t h C i r c u i t h a s been c a r e f u l t o a v o i d o p e n i n g up s e a r c h e s on t h e b a s i s o f t r a f f i c - r e l a t e d a r r e s t s , Taglevore v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 2 9 1 F.2d 262; a s h a s t h e F i f t h C i r c u i t , Amador-Gonzalez v . 644 U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 3 9 1 F.2d 3 0 8 . " P.2d a t 5 0 5 , 39 S t . R e p . a t 8 1 1 . Consequently, extended Carlson to the D i s t r i c t Court here erroneously felonies. v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 45-6-316(1), Wood was charged with a MCA, a f e l o n y , and a f u l l c u s t o d i a l a r r e s t was p r o p e r p u r s u a n t t o a v a l i d w a r r a n t . Third, if e v e r y f e l o n y a r r e s t s u p p o r t e d by a w a r r a n t was s u b j e c t t o h e i g h t e n e d j u d i c i a l s c r u t i n y , l a w e n f o r c e m e n t would b e u n r e a s o n a b l y b u r d e n e d . I n e f f e c t , t h e p o l i c e would h a v e no c l e a r g u i d e l i n e s t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r a r r e s t w i l l be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y c o r r e c t . The order of evidence is vacated, the District Court suppressing the and t h e c a u s e remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. C h i e f ~ustice \ 'L Justices Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea w i l l f i l e a s e p a r a t e o p i n i o n l a t e r .

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.