State v. Redlich

Montana Supreme Court

State v. Redlich

2004 MT 235, 97 P.3d 1090, 322 Mont. 476, 2004 Mont. LEXIS 413

CourtMontana Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 31, 2004

Docket03-391

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2004 MT 235 (State v. Redlich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Redlich, 2004 MT 235, 97 P.3d 1090, 322 Mont. 476, 2004 Mont. LEXIS 413 (Mo. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

JUSTICE REGNIER

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Bryan James Redlich (Redlich) appeals from an order of the Fifth Judicial District Court, Beaverhead County, entered on March 28, 2003, denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a *477 warrantless search of a home he occupied as a party guest. We affirm. ¶2 The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying Redlich’s motion to suppress.

BACKGROUND, STANDARD OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSION

¶3 Redlich’s appeal stems from the same facts as State v. Smith, 2004 MT 234, 322 Mont. 466, 97 P.3d 567. We need not recite the facts and standard of review here; instead we refer the reader to our opinion in Smith. The only relevant difference is that upon entering the apartment, the officers found Redlich in a bedroom rather than in the bathroom, where they found Smith. Redlich was charged with Unlawful Transactions with Children and Underage Possession of Alcohol. Like Smith, Redlich filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during the warrantless search of the apartment. Redlich appeals the denial of said motion.

¶4 Based on the same rationale as we set forth in ¶¶ 8-11 of Smith, we affirm the District Court. The District Court did not err by denying Redlich’s motion to suppress. Redlich did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from the police in the common areas of the apartment, and thus did not having standing to challenge the search.

¶5 Affirmed.

CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY, JUSTICES COTTER, WARNER, LEAPHART, NELSON and RICE concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUSTICE REGNIER

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Bryan James Redlich (Redlich) appeals from an order of the Fifth Judicial District Court, Beaverhead County, entered on March 28, 2003, denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a *477 warrantless search of a home he occupied as a party guest. We affirm. ¶2 The issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying Redlich’s motion to suppress.

BACKGROUND, STANDARD OF REVIEW AND DISCUSSION

¶3 Redlich’s appeal stems from the same facts as State v. Smith, 2004 MT 234, 322 Mont. 466, 97 P.3d 567. We need not recite the facts and standard of review here; instead we refer the reader to our opinion in Smith. The only relevant difference is that upon entering the apartment, the officers found Redlich in a bedroom rather than in the bathroom, where they found Smith. Redlich was charged with Unlawful Transactions with Children and Underage Possession of Alcohol. Like Smith, Redlich filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained during the warrantless search of the apartment. Redlich appeals the denial of said motion.

¶4 Based on the same rationale as we set forth in ¶¶ 8-11 of Smith, we affirm the District Court. The District Court did not err by denying Redlich’s motion to suppress. Redlich did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy from the police in the common areas of the apartment, and thus did not having standing to challenge the search.

¶5 Affirmed.

CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY, JUSTICES COTTER, WARNER, LEAPHART, NELSON and RICE concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2004 MT 235, 97 P.3d 1090, 322 Mont. 476, 2004 Mont. LEXIS 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-redlich-mont-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack