State v. Helfrich, 14744
Decision Date | 03 October 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 14744,14744 |
Citation | 600 P.2d 816,183 Mont. 484,36 St.Rep. 1763 |
Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Richard HELFRICH, Defendant and Respondent. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Mike Greely, Atty. Gen., Helena, Donald E. White, County Atty., Gregory R. Todd, argued, Deputy County Atty., Bozeman, for plaintiff and appellant.
Goetz & Madden, James H. Goetz argued, Bozeman, for defendant and respondent.
The State of Montana appeals from an order of the Gallatin District Court granting defendant's motion to suppress all evidence resulting from an illegal search and seizure.
On July 25, 1978, Mildred Arnold telephoned the Gallatin County Sheriff's Office. She informed the answering officer that she observed what she thought was a number of marijuana plants growing in the yard of her neighbor, Richard Helfrich, in Willow Creek, Montana. A deputy was dispatched to investigate the matter. The yard was fenced and contained a "lush" garden, including tall sunflowers. After investigating and seeing no marijuana, the deputy closed the case.
On July 31, 1978, Arnold entered Helfrich's garden and took a sample of a leafy material. The next day, August 1, 1978, she took a sample to the Gallatin County Sheriff's Office where it was field tested positive for THC, the active ingredient in marijuana.
Later that same day, Gallatin County Sheriff officers went into the alley behind the Helfrich property, looked over the fence of the defendant and claimed to have spotted and subsequently photographed marijuana plants growing within a second enclosure constructed of wood and chicken wire.
On these facts, the officers obtained a search warrant from the Justice of the Peace. On August 3, 1978, the officers went to the Helfrich household and served the warrant on Helfrich's wife. As a result, a quantity of plant material alleged to be marijuana was pulled from the garden.
An information was filed on August 21, 1978, charging Helfrich with criminal sale of dangerous drugs. A suppression hearing was held on November 22, 1978. The District Court, by an order entered on December 4, 1978, suppressed all evidence oral and tangible, direct and indirect, resulting from the search and seizure. The court based its suppression order on faulty probable cause stemming from the illegal actions of Arnold. We affirm.
The State presents three issues for our review:
1. Whether the evidence must be suppressed according to current constitutional authority?
2. Does the exclusionary rule apply to cases in which evidence is illegally seized by a private person?
3. Was Mildred Arnold a constructive agent of the Gallatin County Sheriff's Office?
The 1972 Mont.Const., Art. II, § 11, states in pertinent part:
" . . . No warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing shall issue . . . without probable cause . . . "
Section 46-5-202, MCA, states:
State law requires that the decision as to the existence of probable cause be made on the basis of sufficient competent facts. According to the record, the application for a search warrant was premised on two factors: (1) photographs taken from the roadway abutting the respondent's property by a Gallatin County Sheriff's detective and (2) a sample of marijuana illegally obtained by an inquisitive neighbor.
No trace of marijuana was reported by the first officer who personally surveyed the area on July 25, 1978. In fact, the opposite conclusion was reached as is exemplified by the initial closure of the case. It is virtually impossible by careful scrutiny of the photographs alone to either locate, or identify any substance which would give credibility to the existence of marijuana. Only the sample from Mrs. Arnold affords any basis to support the allegation of the existence of marijuana on the Helfrich property.
The sample obtained by respondent's curious neighbor was obtained by means of illegal trespass upon the Helfrich property. As a result, the sample was tainted as being the fruit of an illegal invasion of respondent's right of privacy. Since the application and subsequent issuance of the search warrant were based in fact, solely on an illegally obtained sample, the issuance of the search warrant and the subsequent search itself were both improper and illegal. The evidence was properly suppressed by the District Court.
The State relies upon the rule enunciated in Burdeau v. McDowell (1921), 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048. That decision held illegally obtained evidence admissible under the Fourth Amendment when seized by a non-governmental agent who is not acting in concert with any governmental agency. We find the Montana Constitution affords an individual greater, explicit protection in this instance than is offered in the Fourth Amendment decision of the Burdeau Court. The 1972 Mont.Const., Art. II, §§ 10 and 11 provide:
The importance of the right of individual privacy to the framers of the Montana Constitution is obvious from these provisions and the transcript of the Montana Constitutional Convention. Transcript of Proceedings, Vol. VII, pp. 5179-5205 (1972). This Court has previously noted the significance of the explicit guarantee of the right to individual privacy contained in section 10, as no comparable provision exists in the United States Constitution. State v. Sawyer (1977), Mont., 571 P.2d 1131, 1133, 34 St.Rep. 1441, 1444; State v. Coburn (1974), 165 Mont. 488, 495, 530 P.2d 442, 446.
The framers of the 1972 Constitution indicated the right of individual privacy was significant whatever the source of the invasion. The delegate who introduced the proposed privacy section reflected these concerns:
Tr. of the Montana Constitutional Convention, Vol. VII, pp....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hyem
...in the 1972 Mont.Const., Art. II, § 10, and the implementation of that policy was continued by this Court, in State v. Helfrich (1979), Mont., 600 P.2d 816, 36 St.Rep. 1763. There we upheld the suppression of evidence gathered by a private citizen who entered a fenced garden to obtain a sam......
-
State v. Long
...cases: State v. Coburn (1974), 165 Mont. 488, 530 P.2d 442; State v. Sawyer (1977), 174 Mont. 512, 571 P.2d 1131; State v. Helfrich (1979), 183 Mont. 484, 600 P.2d 816; State v. Hyem (Mont.1981), 630 P.2d 202, 38 St.Rep. 891; State v. Sayers (Mont.1982), 648 P.2d 291, 39 St.Rep. 1309; State......
-
City of Grand Rapids v. Impens
...whom the protection is guaranteed in the one case as in the other." See also State v. Hyem, Mont., 630 P.2d 202 (1981); State v. Helfrich, Mont., 600 P.2d 816 (1979); State v. Coburn, 165 Mont. 488, 530 P.2d 442 ...
-
People v. North
...validity of the search in this case would be decided under section 1 of article I of the California Constitution. (See State v. Helfrich (Mont.1979) 600 P.2d 816, 819.) ...