No. 12668
I N THE SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O MONTANA OR F H F
- -
STATE O MONTANA, F
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs - WILLIAM FLJLTON STEWART,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable B. W. Thomas, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana . Thomas J Beers, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Ronald W. Smith, County Attorney, argued, Havre, Montana
For Respondent :
Morrison, E t t i e n and Barron, Havre, Montana Robert D. Morrison argued, Havre, Montana
Submitted: September 18, 1974
Decided: bCt 8 1 7 94 Filed: OCT 8 1974' M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.
The r e s p o n d e n t , W i l l i a m F u l t o n S t e w a r t , was a r r e s t e d
on March 1 6 , 1973, f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f dangerous d r u g s . Re-
spondent made a motion t o s u p p r e s s a l l e v i d e n c e s e i z e d from
h i s p e r s o n a t t h e t i m e o f h i s a r r e s t and a l l e v i d e n c e d i s c o v e r e d
and s e i z e d a t h i s r e s i d e n c e p u r s u a n t t o a s e a r c h w a r r a n t . The
d i s t r i c t c o u r t of H i l l County o r d e r e d t h 3 t a l l e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d
by e i t h e r s e a r c h b e s u p p r e s s e d . The S t a t e o f Montana h a s a p p e a l e d
t h e s u p p r e s s i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d by t h e s e a r c h i n c i d e n t
t o respondent's a r r e s t .
P r i o r t o March 1 6 , 1973, r e s n o n d e n t ' s r e s i d e n c e was p l a c e d
u n d e r p o l i c e s u r v e i l l a n c e on a t l e a s t e i g h t o c c a s i o n s . An i n f o r -
mant had s a i d t h a t m a r i j u a n a , a h a s h p i p e , and o t h e r d r u g r e l a t e d
p a r a p h e r n a l i a c o u l d b e found t h e r e ; t h e purpose o f t h e s u r v e i l -
l a n c e was t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r known d r u g u s e r s were f r e q u e n t i n g
t h e premises. Among known d r u g u s e r s who were s e e n a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s
r e s i d e n c e d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d were Dave M a r i a n i and H a r l a n Swan.
On March 1 6 , 1973, s u r v e i l l a n c e was broadened. That a f t e r -
noon o f f i c e r s Robert K u r t z and James D o x t a t e r went t o t h e Le Havre
I n n and p o s i t i o n e d t h e m s e l v e s where t h e y c o u l d view a l l t h e a c t i v i -
t y o f r e s p o n d e n t a t t h e Westco S e r v i c e S t a t i o n , h i s p l a c e o f em-
ployment. The o f f i c e r s were equipped w i t h a twenty power s p o t t -
i n g s c o p e and a p a i r o f b i n o c u l a r s . Throughout t h i s p e r i o d o f
s u r v e i l l a n c e p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n was p a i d t o t h e f r e q u e n t v i s i t s
of M a r i a n i and Swan t o t h e s t a t i o n . They f i r s t came around 4:00
p.m., t h e n between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., and a g a i n around 7:00 p.m.
A f t e r t h e second v i s i t M a r i a n i and Swan l e f t t h e s t a t i o n w i t h o u t
the l a t t e r ' s pickup. A t t h i s t i m e r e s p o n d e n t went o v e r t o t h e
-2- pick-up, removed a n o b j e c t from t h e cab and p l a c e d i t i n h i s
p o c k e t , and r e t u r n e d t o t h e s t a t i o n . Once i n s i d e t h e s t a t i o n ,
repondent removed t h e o b j e c t from h i s p o c k e t and p i c k e d some-
thing out of i t . When M a r i a n i and Swan r e j o i n e d r e s p o n d e n t
a t 7:00 p.m., r e s p o n d e n t a g a i n removed t h e o b j e c t from h i s
pocket and waved i t i n t h e a i r . O f f i c e r Kurtz r e c o g n i z e d t h e
o b j e c t a s a "baggie" c o n t a i n i n g a d a r k - c o l o r e d s u b s t a n c e . I m -
m e d i a t e l y t h e r e a f t e r t h e t r i o were o b s e r v e d p a s s i n g t h e "baggie"
among t h e m s e l v e s . Based upon t h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s and o f f i c e r
Kurtz I s f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h m a r i j u a n a i n r e s a l e form, t h e o f f i c e r s
proceeded t o t h e s t a t i o n t o make a r r e s t s . The "baggier' was
found i n r e s p o n d e n t ' s r i g h t p o c k e t and s e i z e d by o f f i c e r D o x t a t e r .
The c o n t e n t s o f t h e "baggie" were l a t e r a n a l y z e d a s m a r i j u a n a .
The s o l e i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e r e was p r o b a b l e c a u s e u n d e r
t h e F o u r t h Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n t o a r r e s t
respondent without a warrant.
A s u c c i n c t s t a t e m e n t o f what c o n s t i t u t e s " p r o b a b l e c a u s e "
i s found i n B r i n e g a r v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 338 U.S. 160, 1 7 5 , 9 3 L.Ed.
" I n d e a l i n g w i t h p r o b a b l e c a u s e , however, a s t h e v e r y name i m l i e s we d e a l w i t h p r o b a b i l i t i e s . These a r e n o t t e c R n i c a i ; t h e y a r e t h e f a c t u a l and practical con- d d e r a t i o n s of everyday l i f e on which r e a s o n a b l e and p r u - d e n t men, n o t l e g a l t e c h n i c i a n s , a c t . The s t a n d a r d o f proof i s a c c o r d i n g l y c o r r e l a t i v e t o what must be proved.
a he s u b s t a n c e o f a l l t h e d e f i n i t i o n s ' of p r o b a b l e c a u s e ' i s a r e a s o n a b l e ground f o r b e l i e f of g u i l t . ' McCarthy v . De A r m i t , 99 Pa. S t . 6 3 , 69, quoted w i t h a p p r o v a l i n t h e C a r r o l l o p i n i o n , 267 U.S. a t 161. And t h i s 'means l e s s t h a n e v i d e n c e which would j u s t i f y con- demnation' o r c o n v i c t i o n , a s M a r s h a l l , C . J . , s a i d f o r t h e Court more t h a n a c e n t u r y ago i n Locke v . United S t a t e s , 7 Cranch 339, 348. S i n c e ~ a r s h a l l ' st i m e , a t any r a t e , i t h a s come t o mean more t h a n b a r e s u s p i c i o n : P r o b a b l e c a u s e e x i s t s where ' t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h - i n t h e i r [ t h e o f f i c e r s ' ] knowledge and o f which t h e y had r e a s o n a b l e t r u s t w o r t h y i n f o r m a t i o n [ a r e ] s u f f i c i e n t i n t h e m s e l v e s t o w a r r a n t a man of r e a s o n a b l e c a u t i o n i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t ' a n o f f e n s e h a s been o r i s b e i n g committed. C a r r o l l v . United S t a t e s , 267 U.S. 132, 162."
Applying t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s t o t h e c a s e a t b a r , we c o n c l u d e
t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r r e s p o n d e n t ' s a r r e s t .
I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h i s c a s e i s n o t one i n which p r o b a b l e
cause stands o r f a l l s with t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of an informant.
Any u s e f u l n e s s t h e i n f o r m a n t h e r e may have had i n t h e b e g i n n i n g
was l o n g s i n c e d i s s i p a t e d by t h e s u b s e q u e n t c h a i n of e v e n t s .
What p r o b a b l e c a u s e does r e s t upon i s good p o l i c e work by t h e
officers.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
No. 12668
I N THE SUPREME C U T O T E STATE O MONTANA OR F H F
- -
STATE O MONTANA, F
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs - WILLIAM FLJLTON STEWART,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable B. W. Thomas, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant :
Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana . Thomas J Beers, A s s i s t a n t Attorney General, argued, Helena, Montana Ronald W. Smith, County Attorney, argued, Havre, Montana
For Respondent :
Morrison, E t t i e n and Barron, Havre, Montana Robert D. Morrison argued, Havre, Montana
Submitted: September 18, 1974
Decided: bCt 8 1 7 94 Filed: OCT 8 1974' M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.
The r e s p o n d e n t , W i l l i a m F u l t o n S t e w a r t , was a r r e s t e d
on March 1 6 , 1973, f o r p o s s e s s i o n o f dangerous d r u g s . Re-
spondent made a motion t o s u p p r e s s a l l e v i d e n c e s e i z e d from
h i s p e r s o n a t t h e t i m e o f h i s a r r e s t and a l l e v i d e n c e d i s c o v e r e d
and s e i z e d a t h i s r e s i d e n c e p u r s u a n t t o a s e a r c h w a r r a n t . The
d i s t r i c t c o u r t of H i l l County o r d e r e d t h 3 t a l l e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d
by e i t h e r s e a r c h b e s u p p r e s s e d . The S t a t e o f Montana h a s a p p e a l e d
t h e s u p p r e s s i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e o b t a i n e d by t h e s e a r c h i n c i d e n t
t o respondent's a r r e s t .
P r i o r t o March 1 6 , 1973, r e s n o n d e n t ' s r e s i d e n c e was p l a c e d
u n d e r p o l i c e s u r v e i l l a n c e on a t l e a s t e i g h t o c c a s i o n s . An i n f o r -
mant had s a i d t h a t m a r i j u a n a , a h a s h p i p e , and o t h e r d r u g r e l a t e d
p a r a p h e r n a l i a c o u l d b e found t h e r e ; t h e purpose o f t h e s u r v e i l -
l a n c e was t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r known d r u g u s e r s were f r e q u e n t i n g
t h e premises. Among known d r u g u s e r s who were s e e n a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s
r e s i d e n c e d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d were Dave M a r i a n i and H a r l a n Swan.
On March 1 6 , 1973, s u r v e i l l a n c e was broadened. That a f t e r -
noon o f f i c e r s Robert K u r t z and James D o x t a t e r went t o t h e Le Havre
I n n and p o s i t i o n e d t h e m s e l v e s where t h e y c o u l d view a l l t h e a c t i v i -
t y o f r e s p o n d e n t a t t h e Westco S e r v i c e S t a t i o n , h i s p l a c e o f em-
ployment. The o f f i c e r s were equipped w i t h a twenty power s p o t t -
i n g s c o p e and a p a i r o f b i n o c u l a r s . Throughout t h i s p e r i o d o f
s u r v e i l l a n c e p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n was p a i d t o t h e f r e q u e n t v i s i t s
of M a r i a n i and Swan t o t h e s t a t i o n . They f i r s t came around 4:00
p.m., t h e n between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., and a g a i n around 7:00 p.m.
A f t e r t h e second v i s i t M a r i a n i and Swan l e f t t h e s t a t i o n w i t h o u t
the l a t t e r ' s pickup. A t t h i s t i m e r e s p o n d e n t went o v e r t o t h e
-2- pick-up, removed a n o b j e c t from t h e cab and p l a c e d i t i n h i s
p o c k e t , and r e t u r n e d t o t h e s t a t i o n . Once i n s i d e t h e s t a t i o n ,
repondent removed t h e o b j e c t from h i s p o c k e t and p i c k e d some-
thing out of i t . When M a r i a n i and Swan r e j o i n e d r e s p o n d e n t
a t 7:00 p.m., r e s p o n d e n t a g a i n removed t h e o b j e c t from h i s
pocket and waved i t i n t h e a i r . O f f i c e r Kurtz r e c o g n i z e d t h e
o b j e c t a s a "baggie" c o n t a i n i n g a d a r k - c o l o r e d s u b s t a n c e . I m -
m e d i a t e l y t h e r e a f t e r t h e t r i o were o b s e r v e d p a s s i n g t h e "baggie"
among t h e m s e l v e s . Based upon t h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s and o f f i c e r
Kurtz I s f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h m a r i j u a n a i n r e s a l e form, t h e o f f i c e r s
proceeded t o t h e s t a t i o n t o make a r r e s t s . The "baggier' was
found i n r e s p o n d e n t ' s r i g h t p o c k e t and s e i z e d by o f f i c e r D o x t a t e r .
The c o n t e n t s o f t h e "baggie" were l a t e r a n a l y z e d a s m a r i j u a n a .
The s o l e i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e r e was p r o b a b l e c a u s e u n d e r
t h e F o u r t h Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n t o a r r e s t
respondent without a warrant.
A s u c c i n c t s t a t e m e n t o f what c o n s t i t u t e s " p r o b a b l e c a u s e "
i s found i n B r i n e g a r v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 338 U.S. 160, 1 7 5 , 9 3 L.Ed.
" I n d e a l i n g w i t h p r o b a b l e c a u s e , however, a s t h e v e r y name i m l i e s we d e a l w i t h p r o b a b i l i t i e s . These a r e n o t t e c R n i c a i ; t h e y a r e t h e f a c t u a l and practical con- d d e r a t i o n s of everyday l i f e on which r e a s o n a b l e and p r u - d e n t men, n o t l e g a l t e c h n i c i a n s , a c t . The s t a n d a r d o f proof i s a c c o r d i n g l y c o r r e l a t i v e t o what must be proved.
a he s u b s t a n c e o f a l l t h e d e f i n i t i o n s ' of p r o b a b l e c a u s e ' i s a r e a s o n a b l e ground f o r b e l i e f of g u i l t . ' McCarthy v . De A r m i t , 99 Pa. S t . 6 3 , 69, quoted w i t h a p p r o v a l i n t h e C a r r o l l o p i n i o n , 267 U.S. a t 161. And t h i s 'means l e s s t h a n e v i d e n c e which would j u s t i f y con- demnation' o r c o n v i c t i o n , a s M a r s h a l l , C . J . , s a i d f o r t h e Court more t h a n a c e n t u r y ago i n Locke v . United S t a t e s , 7 Cranch 339, 348. S i n c e ~ a r s h a l l ' st i m e , a t any r a t e , i t h a s come t o mean more t h a n b a r e s u s p i c i o n : P r o b a b l e c a u s e e x i s t s where ' t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s w i t h - i n t h e i r [ t h e o f f i c e r s ' ] knowledge and o f which t h e y had r e a s o n a b l e t r u s t w o r t h y i n f o r m a t i o n [ a r e ] s u f f i c i e n t i n t h e m s e l v e s t o w a r r a n t a man of r e a s o n a b l e c a u t i o n i n t h e b e l i e f t h a t ' a n o f f e n s e h a s been o r i s b e i n g committed. C a r r o l l v . United S t a t e s , 267 U.S. 132, 162."
Applying t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s t o t h e c a s e a t b a r , we c o n c l u d e
t h e r e was s u f f i c i e n t p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r r e s p o n d e n t ' s a r r e s t .
I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h i s c a s e i s n o t one i n which p r o b a b l e
cause stands o r f a l l s with t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of an informant.
Any u s e f u l n e s s t h e i n f o r m a n t h e r e may have had i n t h e b e g i n n i n g
was l o n g s i n c e d i s s i p a t e d by t h e s u b s e q u e n t c h a i n of e v e n t s .
What p r o b a b l e c a u s e does r e s t upon i s good p o l i c e work by t h e
officers. Consider t h e record:
1. The o f f i c e r s had e s t a b l i s h e d s u r v e i l l a n c e t o o b s e r v e
p o s s i b l e d r u g t r a f f i c a t r e s p o n d e n t ' s p l a c e o f employ-
ment.
2. Known d r u g u s e r s were s e e n t h e r e s e v e r a l t i m e s .
3. Respondent was o b s e r v e d removing a n o b j e c t from t h e
v e h i c l e of one o f t h e s e known d r u g u s e r s .
4. The o b j e c t was r e c o g n i z e d a s a "baggie" c o n t a i n i n g a
dark-colored substance.
5. The "baggie" was passed around by r e s p o n d e n t and t h e s e
known drug u s e r s .
6. A t l e a s t one o f t h e o f f i c e r s had p r i o r e x p e r i e n c e i n
t h e d r u g f i e l d and knew t h a t "baggies" were commonly u s e d a s r e c e p t a c l e s f o r i l l i c i t drugs.
I n view of t h e f o r e g o i n g , i t i s o u r view t h a t t h e o f f i c e r s
a c t e d under a reasonable b e l i e f t h a t a crime was being com-
m i t t e d i n t h e i r presence.
Accordingly, t h e o r d e r suppressing t h e evidence s e i z e d from
r e s p o n d e n t ' s person a t t h e time of h i s a r r e s t i s vacated and s e t
a s i d e and t h e cause i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r
proceedings.
.................................... Chief J u s t i c e
W concur: e