State v. Graham

• Decision Date: 28 December 2004
• Docket Number: No. 03-163., No. 03-136
• Citation: 325 Mont. 110,103 P.3d 1073,2004 MT 385
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Edward GRAHAM, Defendant and Appellant. State of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Shawnon Lanette Jarvis, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

103 P.3d 1073

2004 MT 385

325 Mont. 110

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. John Edward GRAHAM, Defendant and Appellant.

State of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Shawnon Lanette Jarvis, Defendant and Appellant.

Nos. 03-136, 03-163.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs August 21, 2003.

Decided December 28, 2004.

For Appellant: Amy N. Guth, Attorney at Law, Libby, Montana.

For Respondent: Honorable Mike McGrath, Montana Attorney General, C. Mark Fowler, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana; Bernard Cassidy, Lincoln County Attorney, Robert Slomski, Deputy County Attorney, Libby, Montana.

Justice PATRICIA O. COTTER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 John Edward Graham pled guilty to one count of Operation of Unlawful Clandestine Laboratory, a felony, in violation of § 45-9-132, MCA, while reserving his right to appeal from the Order of the District Court denying his Motion to Suppress Evidence. By an Order Consolidating Appeals issued by this Court on July 8, 2003, without objection by the State or by Graham, we consolidated the appeal of Shawnon Lanette Jarvis, Cause No. 03-163, a co-tenant of the residence occupied by Graham, pursuant to Rule 4(b), M.R.App.P., as these cases were likewise consolidated in the District Court on the Motion to Suppress. The facts and legal arguments raised below, and the Order of the District Court appealed herein, are identical. We reverse.

ISSUES

¶ 2 Did the District Court err when it denied Graham's Motion to Suppress Evidence and concluded that:

¶ 3 1. the search warrant application contained sufficient probable cause to justify a search of Graham's residence;

¶ 4 2. the search warrant application and the search warrant were not overly broad; and

¶ 5 3. the search warrant application was properly signed under oath?

¶ 6 Because Issue One is dispositive, we do not reach the remaining issues.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 7 On July 11, 2002, Daniel Lawson was arrested in Lincoln County on a charge related to the manufacture of methamphetamine. Lawson confessed and offered to provide information about other clandestine methamphetamine laboratories operating in the Libby area. The information provided by Lawson led to the execution of a search warrant on Graham's home and property.

¶ 8 The search warrant application was signed by Detective Klint Gassett of the Lincoln County Sheriff's Office on July 12, 2002, and signed by Lincoln County Justice of the Peace Marlene Herried the following day. The application recites that Gassett had probable cause to believe that an unlawful clandestine laboratory was operating on the premises of the "John Doe Residence" at 3890 South Highway # 2 in Libby. Gassett alleged that the property contained items related to a clandestine laboratory and enunciated a list of items to search for that would be considered "contraband, evidence, fruits of the crime, and articles and instrumentalities used in the commission of the crime...." Gassett further states, "[t]hat the facts which are the grounds of this application and upon which applicant relies to establish probable cause for the issuance of a Search Warrant are outlined in the attached Exhibit `A', incorporated by this reference herein."

¶ 9 Exhibit A explains that, after confessing to operating a methamphetamine laboratory, Lawson provided information to the arresting officers about other Lincoln County residents who were allegedly manufacturing methamphetamine. It further states that information provided by Lawson about several individuals was corroborated by independent evidence and reports. Exhibit A includes Lawson's physical description of Graham and the other residents of that household, whose names Lawson did not know. Further specifics Lawson provided about Graham as memorialized by Gassett in Exhibit A are as follows:

Lawson stated [John Doe] has a methamphetamines laboratory in his garage. [A woman and a child] reside in the house with [Doe]. They live in a one story white house with a fence. Their vehicles appear to be a Dodge Dart, maroon or red in color and a Silver 79 to 81 Oldsmobile. The home is next to HW# 2 ... across the highway from Pioneer Auto Wrecking. There is an unattached garage next to the home and that is where the methamphetamine laboratory is located.

Lawson said that he has been to the home approximately 10 times, the last time being the day before this interview. Lawson said that he takes out Joe Dubler to the residence and that Joe Dubler cooks methamphetamines for [Doe]. That Dubler has told him this and that when he picks up Dubler from the residence he sometimes get[s] methamphetamines from Dubler.... Dubler admitted to this affiant that he has been around methamphetamine laboratories. Dubler denies knowing how to cook. Dubler has a prior record for drug related crimes.

Lawson told this affiant that Chris Stone told him he taught [Doe] to cook methamphetamines and that the methamphetamine laboratory was in the garage of DOE....

Lawson told your affiant that ... Stone has been in the garage and does cook methamphetamines with DOE. Lawson stated to your affiant that he has dropped Dubler off at the residence and ... Dubler go[es] into the garage with DOE. Lawson stated that when he has picked up Dubler from that location that Dubler has brought out methamphetamines to his vehicle from the garage. Lawson stated that Dublers [sic] and Stone told him recently that the Methamphetamine Laboratory at the DOE residence/garage is still operational.

On July 11, 2002, Lawson showed your affiant where the ... residence/garage was located. The home is as described by Lawson, except that there is light green trim on the one story home. [On] July 12, 2002, your affiant got close enough to see the license plate on a gray or silver 4-door vehicle parked in front [of] the house ... registered to a Shawnon Jarvis.... An owner registration check shows that Jarvis also owns a 1994 Saturn 2Door Maroon in color....

The address taken from the Saturn 2-Door registration check is the same address that Lawson showed your affiant where the DOE residence was located....

On July 11, 2002 your affiant saw Joe Dublers mother's vehicle at [this residence]. Your affiant has seen Joe Dubler drive this vehicle before.

With all the information provided your affiant believes that there is a Clandestine Methamphetamine Laboratory at the JOHN DOE residence located at 3890 S HW # 2, Libby, Mt. Lawsons previous information has turned out to be true and correct and there is no known reason why the information regarding this methamphetamine laboratory should be any different.

¶ 10 After the search warrant was signed on July 13, the home and property of "John Doe" — who turned out to be John Graham — was subsequently searched. No evidence of a methamphetamine laboratory was found in the garage, but evidence was located and seized elsewhere on the property. After Graham's arrest, he moved to suppress the evidence gained in the search of his residence. The District Court denied the Motion. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Graham pled guilty to Operation of Unlawful Clandestine Laboratory, a felony, in violation of § 45-9-132, MCA, and reserved his right to appeal the denial of the pretrial Motion to Suppress.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 11 We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether the court's interpretation and application of the law is correct. State v. Marks, 2002 MT 255, ¶ 10, 312 Mont. 169, ¶ 10, 59 P.3d 369, ¶ 10 (citations omitted). We review a district court's legal conclusion on whether or not a search warrant is overbroad de novo. State v. Seader, 1999 MT 290, ¶ 4, 297 Mont. 60, ¶ 4, 990 P.2d 180, ¶ 4 (citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

¶ 12 Did the District Court err when it denied Graham's Motion to Suppress Evidence and concluded that the search warrant application contained sufficient probable cause to justify a search of Graham's residence?

¶ 13 Graham argues that the District Court erred when it concluded that Detective Gassett's search warrant application contained sufficient probable cause to justify a search of his residence. He argues that the application contained only information identifying Graham's garage as a location in which a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory operated. While he concedes that the search warrant application established probable cause to search his garage, Graham claims the application recited no information upon which the judge could form any belief that a crime was being committed in the residence, or elsewhere on the property. He claims that, in light of the information provided in the application, the issuing court exceeded the scope of a permissible warrant by including his residence, curtilage, outbuildings and vehicles in the warrant. Graham states, "It is not a logical assumption that if the informant is reliable or that the information provided by the informant is corroborated, that the State may search any real or personal property connected with the person informed upon." (Emphasis in original.)

¶ 14 The State responds that the search warrant application enunciated a substantial number of facts establishing probable cause that criminal activity had occurred in the residence and was not confined to the garage. The State points to specific facts in the warrant, and asserts that, "a reasonable inference supports the determination that the kinds of ingredients and equipment used to manufacture methamphetamine would be found in the home where a suspect resides next to an unattached garage." The State claims that it is a reasonable inference that the circumstances set forth in Gassett's application would lead a magistrate to conclude that many of the easily portable common household items, such as cold tablets, matches, and cookware, would move back and forth between the house and the unattached garage. The...