STATE v OSTEEN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 84-516 I N THE SUPmME COURT OF THE STATE O MONTANA F 1985 STATE O MONTAPJA, F P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vsNARVIIJ E. OSTEEN, Defenaant and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Nineteenth J u d i c i a l ~ i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f L i n c o l n , The H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t M. H o l t e r , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O RECORD: F For Appellant: 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 D o u g l a s , ( S u s a n Loehn, D e p u t y ) , County A t t o r n e y , L i b b y , Montana W i l l i a m A. For Respondent : Law O f f i c e )of David W. Harman, L i b b y , Montana S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Clerk - Jan. 1 8 , 1985 May 3 0 , 1 9 8 5 Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . The State Lincoln County of Montana District appeals Court from an suppressing order of evidence the seized a f t e r o f f i c e r s e n t e r e d t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s home w i t h o u t a w a r r a n t and also suppressing defendant's r e c e i v i n g a Miranda w a r n i n g . s t a t e m e n t s made prior to W e affirm. The i s s u e s a r e : Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n s u p p r e s s i n g e v i d e n c e 1. seized after officers entered defendant's home without a warrant? Did 2. dant's the District Court err j.n suppressing defen- s t a t e m e n t s made p r i o r t o r e c e i v i n g Miranda w a r n i n g s ? 10:15 Around p.m. on A p r i l 6, 1 9 8 4 , a man r e p o r t e d t o t h e L i n c o l n County S h e r i f f ' s O f f i c e t h a t h e had b e e n a s s a u l t - ed. He reported that the driver of a Lincoln Continental a u t o m o b i l e w i t h l i c e n s e p l a t e s b e a r i n g t h e name " O s t e e n " had pointed a handgun at him and threatened him. The victim s t a t e d h e d i d n o t know t h e d r i v e r , b u t had f o l l o w e d t h e c a r t o a h o u s e where i t was p a r k e d . t h e victim a t t h e Sher- S h e r i f f ' s o f f i c e r s interviewed i f f ' s Office a short t i m e l a t e r . the officers officers the where the following vehicle The v i c t i m a g r e e d t o show was parked. information about t h e He gave suspect: the the s u s p e c t ' s v e h i c l e was a g r e y L i n c o l n C o n t i n e n t a l ; t h e v e h i c l e bore t h e personalized was m a l e , 40-50 license plates "Osteen;" the suspect y e a r s o l d and had g r e y i n g h a i r . The v i c t i m l e d t h r e e o f f i c e r s t o t h e h o u s e w h e r e h e had seen t h e s u s p e c t ' s v e h i c l e parked. way when t h e y a r r i v e d . which r e a d " O s t e e n . " The h o u s e had a s i g n on t h e o u t s i d e While t h e v i c t i m and one o f f i c e r w a i t e d across t h e street i n a p a t r o l officers approached The c a r was i n t h e d r i v e - the house. c a r , two armed and u n i f o r m e d One o f f i c e r looked through t h e windows o f t h e L i n c o l n and saw a p i s t o l a m m u n i t i o n b o x on the rear floor. Without an arrest or search warrant, the two officers went t o t h e f r o n t p o r c h o f t h e h o u s e and knocked on t h e d o o r . The d e f e n d a n t testified that themselves b u t began banging a r o u n d 1 0 : 4 0 p.m. t h e o f f i c e r s d i d n o t announce l o u d l y on t h e d o o r . and i t was d a r k o u t s i d e . Defendant testi- f i e d h e had b e e n a s l e e p f o r a b o u t one h o u r . h i s b a t h r o b e when h e came t o t h e d o o r . they told defendant, "We would T h i s was H e was w e a r i n g One o f f i c e r t e s t i f i e d l i k e t o t a l k t o you, we a r e from t h e S h e r i f f ' s O f f i c e " a n d t h e d e f e n d a n t r e p l i e d , on in." The front door, defendant testified the officers that s i m p l y came when all he "Come opened t h e way the into his l i v i n g room w i t h o u t a n y i n v i t a t i o n b y word o r g e s t u r e . One o f f i c e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d b e e n d r i n k ing, was upset officers were and did doing. not appear The d e f e n d a n t to understand testified what h e had the been s o u n d a s l e e p a n d t h a t when h e w e n t t o t h e d o o r , h e w a s " s t i l l asleep, very sleepy." He testified h e had n o i d e a why t h e o f f i c e r s w e r e t h e r e , b u t t h o u g h t maybe someone h a d d i e d . The o f f i c e r s d i d n o t t e l l d e f e n d a n t h e h a d a r i g h t t o r e f u s e them entry. A f t e r t h e o f f i c e r s e n t e r e d d e f e n d a n t ' s l i v i n g room, t h e y saw a p i s t o l l y i n g on a t a b l e n e x t t o t h e c o u c h . was n o t v i s i b l e f r o m t h e f r o n t d o o r . questioning t h e defendant. T h i s gun One o f f i c e r t h e n b e g a n The o f f i c e r a s k e d d e f e n d a n t w h e r e h e had b e e n t h a t e v e n i n g and w h e t h e r h e had been a t a s p e c i f - ic location. could not t e l l The d e f e n d a n t s a i d h e had n o t b e e n t h e r e a n d them where h e had b e e n o r what h e had been doing. The o f f i c e r a s k e d d e f e n d a n t i f t h e p i s t o l was h i s a n d whether h e had had i t w i t h him t h a t n i g h t . The d e f e n d a n t r e p l i e d t h e p i s t o l was h i s , t h a t h e k e p t it i n t h e h o u s e f o r p r o t e c t i o n and n e v e r t o o k i t o u t s i d e t h e h o u s e . t h e r questioning, After fur- t h e d e f e n d a n t a d m i t t e d h e had b e e n o u t i n h i s c a r t h a t e v e n i n g and t h a t h e had t h e handgun w i t h him. A f t e r e l i c i t i n g t h e s e admissions, t h e o f f i c e r a r r e s t e d defend a n t and r e a d him t h e Miranda w a r n i n g s . The o f f i c e r t o l d him t o g e t d r e s s e d t o go t o t h e S h e r i f f ' s O f f i c e , f o l l o w e d him t o h i s room, watched him w h i l e h e d r e s s e d , t h e n h a n d c u f f e d him and t o o k him t o t h e p a t r o l c a r . The d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d w i t h a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t u n d e r 45-5-202, MCA. The d e f e n d a n t p l e d n o t g u i l t y and f i l e d a motion t o s u p p r e s s e v i d e n c e o f t h e weapon found i n h i s home and t h e s t a t e m e n t s made i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e o f f i c e r ' s q u e s The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d a s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g and tioning. g r a n t e d t h e motion t o suppress. The S t a t e a p p e a l s . I Did seized the District Court after officers err entered in suppressing defendant's home evidence without a warrant? The S t a t e a r g u e s i n s u b s t a n c e t h a t t h e S h e r i f f ' s o f f i cers a c t e d r e a s o n a b l y i n e n t e r i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s h o u s e w i t h o u t a warrant. ble The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s l a c k e d p r o b a - cause t o believe defendant committed an offense u n t i l t h e y found t h e weapon i n h i s home and h e a d m i t t e d t h e weapon was i n h i s c a r w i t h him t h a t n i g h t . The S t a t e a r g u e s t h e o f f i c e r s were m e r e l y i n v e s t i g a t i n g a r e p o r t e d o f f e n s e , t h a t t h e y d i d n o t know t h e i d e n t i t y o f t h e s u s p e c t , t h a t t h e y d i d n o t want t o a c c u s e t h e d e f e n d a n t p r e m a t u r e l y , and t h a t t h e y d i d n o t i n t e n d t o a r r e s t t h e d e f e n d a n t when t h e y went t o t h e door o f t h e house. voluntarily admitted The S t a t e c o n t e n d s the officers, that t h a t t h e defendant the officers were p r o p e r l y w i t h i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s home when t h e y saw t h e weapo n , and t h a t s e i z u r e o f t h e weapon was p r o p e r u n d e r t h e p l a i n view exception to the warrant requirement. The State there- fore argues that the District Court erred in suppressing the weapon seized from defendant's home. Under certain circumstances, peace officers may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant. (1979), 180 Mont. 269, 272, 590 P.2d State v. Sorenson 136, 139. The plain view doctrine may be relied on if two threshold requirements are met: the officers must have a prior justification for the intrusion and the incriminating evidence must be discovered inadvertently in the course of the justified intrusion. Sorenson, 180 Mont. at 272, 590 P.2d at 139. The officers' initial intrusion in this case was not under authority of a warrant. justified under one of Thus, the intrusion must be the recognized Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement. exceptions to the "Searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are Amendment and - per se unreasonable under the Fourth subject only to a few specifically established well-delineated exceptions." Katz v. United States (1967), 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 514, 19 L.Ed.2d 576. Those exceptions are "jealously and carefully drawn," and those seeking an exemption from the warrant requirement have the burden of showing "that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative." Sorenson, 180 Mont. at 273, 590 P.2d at 139, citing Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 403 U.S. 443, 455, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2032, 29 L.Ed.2d 564, reh. den. 404 U.S. 874, 92 S.Ct. 26, 30 L.Ed.2d 120. Here, the State seeks to justify the initial intrusion into defendant's home under the consent exception to the warrant requirement. The State contends that the officers' entry was proper because the defendant invited them into his home. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d a s f o l l o w s : "Here, w e f i n d t h e s e f a c t o r s : " (1) U n i f o r m e d , armed o f f i c e r s a p p e a r e d a t t h e d o o r o f d e f e n d a n t ' s p r i v a t e home a t n i g h t and s o u g h t e n t r a n c e . " ( 2 ) Defendant them i n . f e l t a compulsion t o l e t " ( 3 ) The p u r p o s e o f t h e not apparent, he thought had d i e d . i n t r u s i o n was maybe someone " ( 4 ) The d e f e n d a n t was j u s t a r o u s e d from s l e e p by t h e o f f i c e r s . " (5) Defendant p r e v i o u s l y l i q u o r a n d was u p s e t . had consumed "And, w h e t h e r t h e r e was a 'come i n ' o r j u s t holding a s i d e t h e door o r whatever u n d e r t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e e n t r y was not proper." I n o r d e r t o show t h a t v o l u n t a r y c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h was g i v e n , t h e S t a t e m u s t show t h a t t h e c o n s e n t was u n e q u i v o c a l , specific, and uncontaminated by duress or coercion. C o u r t d i s c u s s e d c o n s e n t a t some l e n g t h i n S t a t e v . ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 202, 204-05, 5 5 1 P.2d LaFlamme 1 0 1 1 , 1012-13, we s t a t e d : ". . . There i s a heavy burden o f proof r e q u i r e d t o show t h a t t h e r e was a consent. The U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t i n Bumper v . N o r t h C a r o l i n a , 391 U.S. 5 4 3 , 5 4 8 , 8 8 S . C t . 1 7 8 8 , 1 7 9 2 , 20 L.Ed.2d 7 9 7 , 502, s e t f o r t h t h e b a s i c r e q u i r e m e n t : "'When a p r o s e c u t o r s e e k s t o r e l y upon consent t o j u s t i f y t h e lawfulness of a s e a r c h , he h a s t h e burden o f proving t h a t t h e c o n s e n t was, i n f a c t , f r e e l y and voluntarily given. * * * ' "The N i n t h C i r c u i t C o u r t o f A p p e a l s g i v e s a more e l a b o r a t e s t a t e m e n t o f t h i s requirement i n Channel v. United S t a t e s , 285 F.2d 2 1 7 , 219 ( 1 9 6 0 ) , s a y i n g : " 'A s e a r c h a n d s e i z u r e may b e made w i t h o u t a search warrant i f t h e individual f r e e l y and i n t e l l i g e n t l y g i v e s h i s une q u i v o c a l and s p e c i f i c c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h , uncontaminated by any d u r e s s o r c o e r c i o n , actual o r implied. The Government h a s The where t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g by c l e a r p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e t h a t s u c h c o n s e n t was g i v e n . ' "The q u e s t i o n t o b e answered i n t h i s c a s e i s w h e t h e r t h e words and a c t i o n s o f t h e defendant w e r e such t h a t a f r e e l y given, unequivocal, and s p e c i f i c consent is shown by c l e a r p o s i t i v e e v i d e n c e . " In examining the surrounding we circumstances, must c o n s i d e r a n y s u b t l y c o e r c i v e p o l i c e a c t i o n s and q u e s t i o n s a s w e l l a s t h e vulnerable s u b j e c t i v e s t a t e of t h e person a l l e g e d t o have c o n s e n t e d . The t e s t i m o n y on t h e p a r t o f t h e d e f e n - d a n t and t h e o f f i c e r s s u p p o r t s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s conclusion t h a t t h e defendant felt a compulsion t o l e t them in. Their testimony a l s o supports t h e c o u r t ' s conclusion t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e i n t r u s i o n was n o t a p p a r e n t , e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e defendant had just been consumed some l i q u o r . to support the aroused from sleep after having There i s c l e a r l y s u f f i c i e n t evidence conclusion that there was not a specific c o n s e n t t o s e a r c h and t h a t t h e r e was c o e r c i o n , e i t h e r a c t u a l o r implied. We p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s i n t h i s c a s e had ample grounds and o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b t a i n a w a r r a n t b e f o r e s e e k i n g entry t o defendant's home. There i s no i n d i c a t i o n in the r e c o r d t h a t t o h a v e done s o would h a v e i n any way i m p a i r e d t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . A s we r e i t e r a t e d in 903, State v. Kao (Mont. 1985), 697 P.2d "The F o u r t h Amendment t o t h e United Article 11, States Constitution and s e c t i o n 11 o f t h e Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n provide f o r t h e r i g h t of t h e people t o be s e c u r e i n t h e i r p e r s o n s , p a p e r s , homes and e f f e c t s from 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 . ... "The p h y s i c a l i n v a s i o n of t h e home i s t h e c h i e f e v i l t o which t h e F o u r t h Amendment is historically directed. 907-08, 42 "'In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed Pryton v. New York without a warrant. ' (1980), 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639. .. 'I. [Tlhe fact that an entry is made at night raises particular concern over its reasonableness. Although crime has become an increasingly serious problem, . . the right of officers to thrust themselves into a home is also a grave concern, not only to the individual but to a society which chooses to dwell in reasonable security and freedom from surveillance." . Here, the officers failed to obtain a warrant and the State has failed to demonstrate any other valid basis for the officers' entry into defendant's home. We conclude there was no consent given under the standard set forth in LaFlamme, and that there was no justification or exigency allowing defendant's home. a warrantless entry into the The officers' entry under the facts of this case was unreasonable and their observation of weapon was an unreasonable, warrantless search. the We therefore reject the State's argument that the weapon seized by the officer is admissible under the plain view exception to the warrant requirement. We hold that the District Court did not err in suppressing evidence seized after the officers entered defendant's home without a warrant. Did the District Court err in suppressing defendant's statements made prior to receiving Miranda warnings? After entering defendant's home without a warrant or other authorization and finding defendant's weapon, the officers interrogated the defendant at some length without g i v i n g Miranda w a r n i n g s . In t h e course of t h i s interroga- t i o n , t h e o f f i c e r s e l i c i t e d i n c r i m i n a t i n g a d m i s s i o n s from t h e d e f e n d a n t r e g a r d i n g t h e weapon, t h e v e h i c l e and d e f e n d a n t ' s The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e a c t i v i t i e s t h a t night. i n t e r r o g a t i o n was done i n a c u s t o d i a l a t m o s p h e r e and o r d e r e d s u p p r e s s i o n o f d e f e n d a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t s made d u r i n g t h i s i n t e r rogation. W find t h e record contains s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t Court's conclusion. Custodial is interrogation defined as "questioning i n i t i a t e d by law e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s a f t e r a p e r s o n h a s b e e n of h i i n t o c u s t o d y o r o t h e r w i s e d e p r i v e d - -s taken a c t i o n - any s i g n i f i c a n t way." in 658 P.2d 400, 402, 40 St.Rep. Arizona ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 384 U.S. L.Ed.2d 694, 706 S t a t e v. freedom of Lapp (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 120, 444, 436, 1 2 2 , q u o t i n g Miranda v . 86 S . C t . (emphasis i n Lapp). 1602, 1 6 1 2 , 16 A s t h e S t a t e contends, an i n t e r r o g a t i o n becomes c u s t o d i a l and i s s u b j e c t t o Miranda r e q u i r e m e n t s i f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n which t h e i n t e r r o g a t i o n t a k e s p l a c e a r e such t h a t a reasonable person being i n t e r r o g a t e d would f e e l h e was i n c u s t o d y o r o t h e r w i s e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d e p r i v e d o f h i s freedom. a t 123. Lapp, in this case was w a r n i n g s were n o t r e q u i r e d . Courts deprived a t 403, 40 St.Rep. The S t a t e a r g u e s u n d e r t h i s s t a n d a r d t h a t t h e i n t e r - rogation whether 658 P.2d a consider suspect of warnings. his a not custodial and that Miranda W disagree. e number of factors in i s i n c u s t o d y o r h a s been freedom o f action determining significantly f o r purposes of Miranda These f a c t o r s i n c l u d e t h e p l a c e o f i n t e r r o g a t i o n , t h e t i m e of i n t e r r o g a t i o n , persons present during interrogation, w h e t h e r Miranda w a r n i n g s w e r e g r a t u i t o u s l y g i v e n , and w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e s u s p e c t was a r r e s t e d f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n ing. Lapp, 658 P.2d a t 403, 40 S t . R e p . a t 122. It i s not necessary t h a t i n t e r r o g a t i o n occur a t t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n i n order to invoke the Miranda requirements. Interrogation which occurs in the suspect's home is subject to Miranda where it occurs in a coercive environment in which the suspect's freedom of action has been significantly restricted. State v. 1146, Ryan (1979), 182 Mont. 130, 133-35, 595 1147-48; Orozco v. Texas (1969), 394 U.S. P.2d 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311. Here, two armed and uniformed police officers appeared at defendant's door at night and sought entry. Meanwhile, another officer and the alleged victim waited in a vehicle outside defendant's home. The two officers entered defen- dant's home without a warrant or other authorization, and began to interrogate the defendant regarding the weapon, his vehicle and his activities that night. The defendant was alone in his home at the time. The questioning apparently exceeded ten minutes in length. The officers repeated their questioning officers until testified receiving that, at satisfactory first, the having the gun in his car that night. answers. Both defendant denied After additional questioning, the defendant admitted the gun was with him in the car and he was formally arrested. These facts establish that the defendant was significantly deprived of his freedom of action. The State attempts to characterize the officers' visit and questioning as a general investigative inquiry. The record establishes that prior to actually knocking at the door, the officers had been given a description of the suspect and his weapon, the suspect's vehicle and its license plate. The officers were led by the victim to the home, which was identified by the same name as that which appeared on the license plate. The vehicle was in the driveway and the officers observed a pistol ammunition box inside the vehicle. A t t h i s point, t h e o f f i c e r s c l e a r l y had s u f f i c i e n t information t o obtain a search o r a r r e s t warrant. V conclude t h a t t h e record contains s u b s t a n t i a l credii e b l e evidence t o support t h e District Court's conclusion t h a t the defendant was interrogated r e q u i r i n g Miranda w a r n i n g s . in a custodial atmosphere The f a i l u r e o f t h e o f f i c e r s t o p r e f a c e t h e i r q u e s t i o n s w i t h Miranda w a r n i n g s r e n d e r s i n a d missible the defendant' s statements made during that interrogation. We hold defendant's that the District Court s t a t e m e n t s made p r i o r warning. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: , / correctly suppressed t o r e c e i v i n g t h e Miranda
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.
