State v. McDanal
| Decision Date | 04 October 2016 |
| Docket Number | DA 15-0050 |
| Citation | 381 P.3d 555 (Table),386 Mont. 1 |
| Parties | State of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Alisha Yvonne McDanal, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Chad Wright, Chief Appellate Defender, Haley Connell Jackson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana.
For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Katie F. Schulz, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Steven N. Eschenbacher, Lake County Attorney, Polson, Montana.
¶ 1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court's quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶ 2 Alisha Yvonne McDanal (McDanal) appeals from a September 24, 2014 conviction pursuant to a plea agreement in which she reserved the right to appeal the District Court's denial of her motions to suppress. McDanal pled guilty to the offense of felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs in exchange for a three-year deferred sentence. The Court stayed McDanal's sentence until the conclusion of her appeal. McDanal timely appealed. We affirm.
¶ 3 On November 14, 2013, the State charged McDanal with felony intimidation. The State later amended the Information to felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs, in violation of § 45–9–102, MCA. The charges arise from a November 3, 2013 arrest. Polson police received a report that a possible domestic assault was in progress in the apartment McDanal and her boyfriend shared. McDanal was present during the assault but was not the victim. Police found the victim outside the apartment with a broken leg, later determined to be a bullet wound.
¶ 4 To search for evidence of the assault Polson police obtained a search warrant for McDanal's apartment, and searched it that evening. In the apartment, Officers discovered drug paraphernalia commonly associated with methamphetamine use and several small bags containing white powder that tested positive for methamphetamine. Detective Michelle Scott (Det. Scott) interviewed McDanal that evening at the Lake County Detention Facility. Det. Scott reported McDanal “had unnatural body movements, unnatural movement of her mouth and facial expressions which are similar to those under the influence of methamphetamine.” Based on her training and experience Det. Scott believed McDanal was under the influence of drugs, specifically methamphetamine.
¶ 5 On November 5, 2013, two days after the arrest, Det. Scott applied for a search warrant to test McDanal's urine for methamphetamine. In the application Det. Scott included the following facts: Det. Scott is a credible witness as she is trained and experienced in detection of drug use, including methamphetamine; police responded to a possible domestic dispute at McDanal's apartment, where police found a victim with a gunshot wound to the leg; police obtained a search warrant for McDanal's apartment, which when executed resulted in the discovery of drugs and paraphernalia associated with methamphetamine use in various places throughout the apartment; and Det. Scott personally interviewed McDanal, observing McDanal was impaired, had unnatural body movements, and unnatural movements of the face and mouth similar to people under the influence of methamphetamine. McDanal's urine was seized pursuant to the search warrant and tested positive for methamphetamines.
¶ 6 On November 14, 2013, the State charged McDanal with felony intimidation. Upon McDanal's request, the trial was continued multiple times. On July 3, 2014, the District Court granted the State's motion to amend its Information to charge McDanal with felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs. On August 1, 2014, McDanal filed two motions to suppress, one to suppress the drugs and paraphernalia found in the apartment, and one to suppress the positive drug results from the urine analysis test.
¶ 7 The District Court initially granted the motion to suppress .08 grams of alleged drug evidence, but denied the motion to suppress the urine analysis test. The District Court, in its order denying McDanal's motion to suppress the urine analysis test, excised the evidence of the .08 grams of alleged drug evidence when it reviewed the application for the search warrant. The District Court determined the facts stated in the application were sufficient to show probable cause that criminal possession of dangerous drugs had occurred, and the urine test was reasonably calculated to find evidence of that crime, satisfying the requirements of § 46–5–221, MCA. McDanal appeals the order denying her motion to suppress the urine analysis results.
¶ 8 We review a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence 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. Minett , 2014 MT 225, ¶ 7, 376 Mont. 260, 332 P.3d 235.
¶ 9 McDanal argues the District Court erred when it denied her motion to suppress evidence of the urine analysis results. She argues that at the time the search warrant was issued, the facts asserted in the application were stale, and therefore were not sufficient to show probable cause that methamphetamine would be found in her urine.
¶ 10 The Montana Constitution states, “[n]o warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing shall issue without describing the place to be searched or the person or thing to be seized, or without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation reduced to writing.” Mont. Const. art. II, § 11. In Montana, judges shall issue search warrants when a law enforcement officer, under oath or affirmation, in writing, electronically, or by telephone:
Section 46–5–221, MCA. The sufficiency of a warrant is assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine...
To continue reading
Request your trial