State v. Heath
Decision Date | 13 April 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 98-510.,98-510. |
Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Todd HEATH, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Mark Hilario, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana, For Appellant.
Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General; Jennifer Anders, Assistant Attorney General; Helena, Montana, Dennis Paxinos, Yellowstone County Attorney; Sheila R. Kolar, Deputy Yellowstone County Attorney, Billings, Montana, For Respondent.
¶ 1 Todd Heath (Heath) was charged in the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, with criminal possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Heath pled guilty to the charges and reserved his right to appeal the District Court's denial of his motion to suppress items that were seized from his person pursuant to a warrantless search. We reverse the court's ruling.
¶ 2 The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying Heath's motion to suppress items found on his person during a pat-down search for weapons.
¶ 3 The matter was decided by the District Court without an evidentiary hearing on the basis of the facts set forth in the parties' briefs. The undisputed facts recited by the District Court are as follows:
¶ 4 The standard of review of a district court's denial of a motion to suppress is whether the court's interpretation and application of the law are correct. State v. Graham (1995), 271 Mont. 510, 512, 898 P.2d 1206, 1207-08 (citation omitted).
¶ 5 Did the District Court err in denying Heath's motion to suppress items found on his person during a pat-down search for weapons?
¶ 6 A search without a warrant is per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article II, Section 11 of the Constitution of the State of Montana. Both federal and state law recognize certain judicial exceptions to the warrant requirement. See State v. McCarthy (1993), 258 Mont. 51, 55, 852 P.2d 111, 113
(citation omitted). Here, the search of Heath was conducted without a warrant and was, therefore, per se unreasonable unless it satisfies one of the judicially recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement. In the District Court, the State contended that the relevant exceptions were search incident to arrest and stop and frisk. The District Court concluded that the search of Heath's person did not come within the search incident to an arrest exception. It found, however, that the search did qualify as a valid stop and frisk search under §§ 46-5-401 et seq., MCA. We therefore review that conclusion to determine whether it is correct.
¶ 7 Given the following facts, the State argues that the officers were justified in stopping and frisking Heath for weapons: they had just received a call from Heath's ex-girlfriend Gayle Raymond (Raymond) that Heath was parked in an alley outside her residence and was creating a commotion; Heath had harassed her just days earlier with a gun; when the officers arrived at the residence, Heath sped off; and his passenger appeared to be hiding something under the front seat. Under the circumstances, the State contends, the pat-down search was permissible and the drugs and paraphernalia found in the search were lawfully seized under the "plain feel" doctrine. See State v. Collard (1997), 286 Mont. 185, 194-96, 951 P.2d 56, 61-63
.
¶ 8 Heath argues that the fact that Raymond reported that he had threatened her with a gun a few days earlier did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion that Heath was armed with a gun on the night in question. Secondly, he contends that even if the officers reasonably suspected that he was armed, the small leather coin purse and glass rod could not have been reasonably mistaken for deadly weapons.
¶ 10 We agree with the District Court that the officers reasonably suspected that Heath might be armed and thus they were justified in conducting a stop and frisk type search. Even so, Heath contends that the objects recovered could not be reasonably mistaken for deadly weapons. The issue then becomes whether the officers exceeded the permissible scope of the pat-down search.
¶ 11 The stop and frisk procedure was first enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio, and is defined as "a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons [suspects the officer fears may be armed and presently dangerous] in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault [the officer]." Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1884-85, 20 L.Ed.2d 889.
¶ 12 The District Court observed that although
¶ 13 Turning first to the small leather coin purse, the District Court's observation that the leather bag itself "could not be mistaken for a weapon" is determinative. As noted above, the officers were justified in conducting a Terry stop and frisk search. That is, a carefully limited search of Heath's outer clothing to discover weapons. The District Court, without any record as to what the officer's rationale was for removing and searching the coin purse, concludes that "it could have contained a weapon." We conclude that, under the facts of this case, such a conclusion exceeds the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Laster
...pat-down as a potential knife or derringer), overruled on other grounds by Loh , 275 Mont. at 471-73, 914 P.2d at 599-600. Compare State v. Heath , 2000 MT 94, ¶ 17, 299 Mont. 230, 999 P.2d 324 ( Terry does not authorize "random[ ] ‘recover[y]’ [of] items from the suspect's clothing" for ex......
-
State v. Laster
...exception), based on reasonable particularized suspicion that the man may have been reaching for a weapon. Pearson, ¶¶ 10 and 19. ¶29 In Heath, three Billings police officers to a report of a residential disturbance reportedly involving a man who was again harassing a woman by knocking on h......
-
State v. Zeimer
...[of] items from the suspect's clothing" for examination absent ready-recognition of them as a weapon on pat-down touch. State v. Heath , 2000 MT 94, ¶ 17, 299 Mont. 230, 999 P.2d 324 ( Terry protective pat-down/frisk exception does not allow police "to simply ‘recover’ objects from the susp......
-
State v. Zeimer
...[of] items from the suspect's clothing" for examination absent ready-recognition of them as a weapon on pat-down touch. State v. Heath, 2000 MT 94, ¶ 17, 299 230, 999 P.2d 324 (Terry protective pat-down/frisk exception does not allow police "to simply 'recover' objects from the suspect's cl......