STATE v HENDRICKSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 84-416 I N T E SUPREME COURT O F THB STATE O M N A A H F OTN 1985 STATE O F MONTANA, Plaintiff and A p p e l l a n t , -vs- R I C K Y BENDRICKSON, D e f e n d a n t and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d F o r t h e County o f H i l l , The H o n o r a b l e Chan E t t i e n , 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 K i n K r a d o l f e r a r g u e d , A s s t . A t t y . G e n e r a l , Helena Ronald W. S m i t h , County A t t o r n e y , Havre, Montana For Respondent : Law O f f i c e o f F r a n k Altman; Dan Boucher a r g u e d , Havre, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: Clerk ;lay 2, 1385 J u l y 11 1985 Morrison, Jr., d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f J u s t i c e F r a n k B. t h e Court. Mr. On J u l y 2 6 , motion to vehicle, of 1984, suppress d e f e n d a n t , Ricky Hendrickson f i l e d a evidence found during a search of his a l l e g i n g lack of probable cause t o support issuance t h e search warrant. Following a h e a r i n g i n t h e Twelfth District Court, Judicial A u g u s t 6 , 1984. find We defendant's m o t i o n was granted on The S t a t e a p p e a l s . that the appl-ication f o r the search warrant contains s u f f i c i e n t probable cause t o support t h e issuance of a s e a r c h w a r r a n t and r e v e r s e t h e o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . On Police January 25, Department, informant's tip, 1984, acting applied Sgt. in Gene Harada response to f o r and r e c e i v e d a from H i l l C o u n t y J u s t i c e o f t h e P e a c e , i n f o r m a n t was w e l l rel-iable of a the Havre confidential search warrant Edward V a s e c k a . The known t o t h e S e r g e a n t a s h e had p r o v i d e d information to the Sergeant on several other occasions. S g t . Harada ' s a f f i d a v i t r e q u e s t i n g i s s u a n c e o f a s e a r c h warrant s t a t e s : "An i n f o r m a n t h a s c o n t a c t e d m e w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n concerning t h e above person. This informant has t o l d me t h a t t h e y a r e t r a n s p o r t i n g t h e a b o v e d r u g s t o Great F a l l s t h i s afternoon with t h e i n t e n t of s e l l i n g them. There i s a music c o n c e r t t o b e held i n Great F a l l s t h i s evening. "The i n f o r m a n t s t a t e s t h a t t h e l i s t e d s u s p e c t i s p l a n n i n g t o l e a v e t h e Havre Area b e t w e e n 1200 h r s . and 1500 h r s . on J a n . 2 5 , 1 9 8 4 . "The i n f o r m a n t knows t h e a b o v e l i s t e d s u s p e c t . The i n f o r m a n t knows t h a t t h e s u s p e c t h a s u s e d d r u g s a n d h a s b e e n p r e s e n t when t h e s u s p e c t h a s u s e d d r u g s . "The i n f o r m a n t h a s b e e n i n t h e company o f t h e s u s p e c t i n t h e v e r y r e c e n t p a s t and h a s h e a r d t h e s u s p e c t i n d i c a t e t o him t h a t h e was g o i n g t o t r a n s p o r t t h e s e d r u g s t o G r e a t Fal-1s today. " T h i s c o n f i d e n t i a l i n f o r m a n t i s known t o m e . I h a v e had c o n t a c t w i t h t h i s i n f o r m a n t o n a number o f o t h e r o c c a s i o n s i n which t h e n [ s i c ] i n f o r m a n t h a s provided information concerning other criminal i n v e s t i g a t i o n and h a s proved t o b e r e l i a b l e . "The l i s t e d s u s p e c t h a s b e e n u n d e r s u r v e i l l a n c e b y t h e H a v r e P o l i c e D e p a r t m e n t and H i l l C o u n t y S h e r i f f o f f i c e because of o t h e r i n t e l l i g e n c e information r e c i e v e d [ s i c ] o v e r t h e p a s t s i x ( 6 ) weeks." The warrant application described the vehicle to be s e a r c h e d a s " a 1 9 7 8 R o y a l B l u e F o r d LTD I1 w i t h a r e a r s p o i l - e r o n t r u n k , mag w h e e l s , d o u b l e w h i t e s t r i p down b o t h s i d e s This i s o f t h e v e h i c l e a n d h a s a 2 0 s t i c k e r i n r e a r window. registure [ s i c ] t o Ricky Hendrickson." The p r o p e r t y a l l e g e d t o b e i n t h e c a r was " a l a r g e amount o f m a r i j u a n a . " T h a t same d a y , Sgt. it p u r s u a n t searched marijuana (125.92 Harada to the grams), stopped d e f e n d a n t ' s c a r and search warrant. a prescription Two b a g s of thought to bottle c o n t a i n LSD a n d two w a t e r p i p e s w e r e s e i z e d . H e n d r i c k s o n was charged w i t h c r i m i n a l possession o f dangerous drugs. I n s u p p o r t o f h i s motion t o s u p p r e s s , Hendrickson a l l e g - es t h a t t h e a f f i d a v i t s u p p o r t i n g t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t f a i l e d t o set forth sufficient facts to establish probable cause to i s s u e t h e w a r r a n t a n d t h a t t h e J u s t i c e o f t h e P e a c e r e l i e d on information outside the four issuing t h e search warrant. es t h a t the Justice of corners of the affidavit in S p e c i f i c a l l y , Hendrickson a l l e g - t h e Peace considered unsworn, oral answers t o q u e s t i o n s posed t o S g t . Harada. At Justice t h e h e a r i n g on of the Peace defendant's testified motion that he o f f i c e r s p r i o r t o issuing search warrants. that the warrant, affidavit contained probable but he never that would questioning t h e Sergeant. t o suppress, always the questions He further stated cause t o support t h e have issued it without R e l y i n g s o l e l y on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n within t h e four corners of Sgt. Harada's a f f i d a v i t , t h e t r i a l judge found a l a c k o f p r o b a b l e c a u s e t o i s s u e a s e a r c h war- r a n t and d e n i e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . The S t a t e o f Montana r a i s e s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s i n i t s a p p e a 1: 1. W h e t h e r t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t was s u p p o r t e d b y p r o b a b l e cause? 2. W h e t h e r t h e p o l i c e o f f i c e r r e a s o n a b l y a n d i n good f a i t h r e l i e d on t h e J u s t i c e o f t h e Peace's determination of probable cause s o a s t o preclude application of t h e exclu- sionary rule? The c u r r e n t t e s t f o r d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a n i n f o r m a n t ' s t i p e s t a b l i s h e s probable cause f o r issuance of a warrant i s found in I l l i n o i s v. Gates ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 462 U.S. 213, 238, 103 " [ W l e c o n c l u d e t h a t it i s w i s e r t o a b a n d o n t h e 'two-pronged t e s t ' e s t a b l i s h e d by o u r d e c i s i o n s i n A g u i l a r and S p i n e l l i . I n i t s p l a c e we r e a f f i r m t h e t o t a l i t y of t h e circumstances analysis t h a t t r a d i 1 t i o n a 1 ; h a s informed probable c a u s e determinations. [Citations omitted. ] The t a s k o f t h e i s s u i n g m a g i s t r a t e i-s s i m p l y t o make a p r a c t i c a l , common-sense d e c i s i o n w h e t h e r , g i v e n a l l t h e c i r cumstances s e t f o r t h i n t h e a f f i d a v i t b e f o r e him, including the v e r a c i t y f and ' b a s i s o f knowledge ' of p e r s o n s s u p p l y i n g h e a r s a y i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e r e i s a f a i r p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t contraband o r evidence o f a crime w i l l be f o u n d i n a p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e . And t h e duty o f a reviewing c o u r t i s simply t o ensure t h a t t h e m a g i s t r a t e had a ' s u b s t a n t i a l b a s i s f o r conclud [ing] t h a t probable cause existed. Jones v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , s u p r a , 362 U.S., a t 2 7 1 , 80 S . C t . , a t 736." (footnote omitted) ... This adopted P.2d "totality in 760, this State. 41 St.Rep. s t r i n g e n t , two-prong of of the S t a t e v. 420. 1 5 0 9 , 1 2 L.Ed.2d 393 U.S. 410, 89 Aguilar-Spinelli S.Ct. information been 1 9 8 4 ) , 679 Texas test. For discussions ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 378 U.S. 1.08, 84 723; S p i n e l l i v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 584, E r l e r (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 672 P.2d The (Mont. O'Neill has It completely replaces t h e m o r e t h a t t e s t , see A g u i l a r v . S.Ct. test circumstances" 2 1 L.Ed.2d 637; 6 2 4 , 40 S t . R e p . contained in Sgt. and S t a t e v. 1915. Harada's affidavit s a t i s f i e s t h e probable cause test set f o r t h i n Gates, supra. I t i n c l u d e s i n f o r m a t i o n concerning t h e p l a c e where t h e d r u g s could be t h e d a t e and t i m e when t h e d r u g s c o u l d b e found; found; t h e kind o f drugs involved; t h e intended use of drugs; an description defendant's accurate accurate description states that of informant used drugs; of defendant's had been travel present car; and plans. when t h a t defendant personally t o l d the an It a1s o the defendant i n f o r m a n t h e was g o i n g t o t r a n s p o r t d r u g s t o G r e a t F a l l s on J a n u a r y 25, 1984; a n d t h a t i n f o r m a n t was b e l i e v e d r e l i a b l e b e c a u s e o f r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n p r e v i o u s l y p r o v i d e d b y him t o t h e p o l i c e . Defendant suggests that probable cause l i s h e d i n t h i s c a s e f o r numerous r e a s o n s . not adequately explain "they" when is not estab- The i n f o r m a n t d i d stating going t o take t h e drugs t o Great F a l l s . " that "they are The i n f o r m a n t d i d n o t c l a i m t o have seen t h e d r u g s , n o r d i d h e know w h e r e i n t h e c a r t h e d r u g s c o u l d b e found. The i n f o r m a n t p r o v i d e d n o i n f o r m a t i o n i n d i c a t i n g t h a t d e f e n d a n t was a r e t a i l e r , wholes a l e r o r d i s t r i b u t o r of marijuana. t h e t e r m "indicate" i n "informant is indicate1' too broad. To And f i n a l l y , . . . has give heard t h e suspect credence t o a r g u m e n t would b e t o p l a c e " u n d u e a t t e n t i o n the use of defendant's . . . on isolated i s s u e s t h a t c a n n o t s e n s i b l y b e d i v o r c e d from t h e o t h e r f a c t s presented t o the magistrate." 103 S . C t . a t 2 3 3 0 , 76 L.Ed.2d The "totality of the Gates, 462 U.S. a t 234-235, a t 545-546. circumstances," from t h e f a c e of S g t . Harada ' s a f f i d a v i t , c l e a r l y s u p p o r t s a f i n d i n g o f p r o b a ble cause. beyond the We approve the four corners of trial judge's that affidavit. o b t a i n e d d u r i n g t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n between refusal to look No i n f o r m a t i o n the Justice of the P e a c e a n d S g t . H a r a d a may b e u s e d t o d e t e r m i n e p r o b a b l e c a u s e b e c a u s e t h e S e r g e a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t s w e r e unsworn, u n s i g n e d and n o t a p a r t of t h e record. S t a t e e x r e l . Townsend v . D i s t r i c t Court (1975), 1 6 8 Mont. 357, 363, 5 4 3 P.2d 193, 196. he occurrence of t h a t conversation does not adversely a f f e c t t h e finding t h a t probable cause to i s s u e a search warrant e x i s t s b e c a u s e t h a t f i n d i n g rests s o l e l y on t h e i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e affidavit. P.2d be S t a t e v. 1070, the conversations of 1 5 8 , 1 6 2 , 545 this Justice of t h e Peace t o conduct such . S i n c e we probable ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 6 9 Mont. However, w e d i s a p p r o v e o f w h a t a p p e a r s t o 1072. habit Thomson cause find the contained Harada's a f f i d a v i t , search within warrant the to four be supported corners R e v e r s e d and remanded f o r t r i a l . Justices Sgt. it i s u n n e c e s s a r y t o d i s c u s s t h e s e c o n d , "good f a i t h " i s s u e r a i s e d b y t h e S t a t e . W e concur: of by t Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, dissenting: It is a disservice to the District Judge, the Honorable Chan Ettien, not to discuss the reasons on which he found that the warrant in this case was improvidently issued. In his written memorandum, after stating his observation respecting the ambiguities of the application for warrant, Zudge Ettien noted: "There is not a smidgeon of information in the application purportedly or impliedly from the surveillance. One could gather that there was substantial surveillance of Defendant's residence and movements. One must presume no suspicions of criminal action surfaced, particularly of trafficking, which would have been of material underlying circumstance. "Judge Vasecka made it clear, during examination that he included his oral interrogation of Harada That he in his decision to issue the warrant. relied. on Harada's statements, not on the informant's as to the information in the appl-ication. "Judge Vasecka made it clear also that the critical basis for his issuance of the writ was the oral conversations with Ha-rada at the time Harada applied. Admittedly, this conversation was oral, not under oath, and had not been reduced to writing and made a part of the original application. Thompson v. stad ad ( 1 9 7 9 ) 182 M - 1 1 9 : state - ex re1 Townsend (1975) 168 Mont 3 5 7 . . "The application does not (other than allegation of Defendant's personal use) establish that the crime charged has been committed or is being committed. We have only the unsubstantiated statement that there is a large quantity of marijuana in Defendant's car . . ." Under our state constitution, Article 11, Section 11, it is prescribed that no warrant to search any place or thing shall issue "without probable cause, supported by oath or . affirmation reduced t o writing." Judge Ettien followed the constitution in determining that the information on which Judge Vasecka relied. to issue the warrant had not been reduced to writing. Therefore the warrant was invalid. All the esoteric discussion in the majority opinion respecting the decision in Illinois v. Gates, supra, Jones v. United States, et all have no bearing on this case. It is a simple matter that the justice of the peace did not rely on the four-corners of the application, but instead depended on unsworn information from the constable to issue the warrant for search. Judge Ettj-en was correct in his decision. I would affirm. Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., concurs with the foregoing dissent.

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.