State v. Roberts, 96-629

• Decision Date: 17 July 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-629,96-629
• Citation: 284 Mont. 54,943 P.2d 1249
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Bryon ROBERTS, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 1249

943 P.2d 1249

284 Mont. 54

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Bryon ROBERTS, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 96-629.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs May 22, 1997.

Decided July 17, 1997.

Mark A. English; Deputy Public Defender; Billings, for Defendant and Appellant.

Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General; Cregg W. Coughlin, Assistant Attorney General; Helena, Montana, Dennis Paxinos, Yellowstone County Attorney; Dale Mrkich, Deputy County Attorney; Billings, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

TRIEWEILER, Justice.

The appellant, Bryon Roberts, was charged by information, filed in the District Court for the Thirteenth Judicial District in Yellowstone County, with the offense of criminal possession of dangerous drugs, in violation of § 45-9-102, MCA. He filed a motion to suppress evidence, which the District Court denied. He then pled guilty to the charge against him. He appeals the District Court's order denying his motion to suppress. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred when it denied Bryon Roberts' motion to suppress.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On July 2, 1995, Officers David Punt and Mike Zidack stopped a vehicle at the intersection of Third Avenue North and South 32nd Street in Billings. During that traffic stop, the police officers arrested Bryon Roberts, a passenger in the vehicle.

On July 10, 1995, Roberts was charged by information with the offense of criminal possession of dangerous drugs. The information states, in relevant part, as follows:

Officer Punt spoke to the driver of the car. Officer Zidack spoke to the passenger, later identified as defendant Bryon Roberts. A routine records check revealed an active arrest warrant for [Roberts] out of Billings City Court. [Roberts] was arrested on the warrant, and he was transported to the Yellowstone County Detention Facility.

During the booking procedure at the detention facility, detention officers recovered a gold metal container which contained approximately nineteen (19) paper bindles.

The State Crime Lab determined that those nineteen bindles contained Methamphetamine On June 3, 1996, Roberts filed a motion to suppress the contents of the gold metal container which was found on his person. The District Court, however, declined to hold an evidentiary hearing and denied that motion.

a Schedule II drug, with a combined weight of 1.60 grams.

Roberts subsequently pled guilty to the charge against him. Pursuant to an agreement with the State, however, he preserved his right to appeal the District Court's order which denied his motion to suppress.

DISCUSSION

Did the District Court err when it denied Bryon Roberts' motion to suppress?

The standard for review of a district court's denial of a motion to suppress is whether the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous, and whether those findings were correctly applied as a matter of law. State v. Williams (1995), 273 Mont. 459, 462, 904 P.2d 1019, 1021; State v. Flack (1993), 260 Mont. 181, 188, 860 P.2d 89, 94.

Although the District Court declined to hold an evidentiary hearing, both Roberts and the State submitted briefs in support of their respective positions. In its written order which denied the motion to suppress, the court determined that:

The initial stop of the driver of the motor vehicle in which [Roberts] was a passenger is not challenged and was a legal stop based on the officer's belief that an arrest warrant existed for the driver. Standard procedure was implemented for officer safety at that stop and [Roberts] was not allowed to exit the motor vehicle.

Subsequently, [Roberts] was arrested pursuant to a valid outstanding arrest warrant.... Once arrested, [Roberts] was searched. Again, this is standard procedure for officer safety and is reasonable and legal. Mont.Code Ann. § 46-5-102.

On appeal, Roberts contends that the District Court erred when it denied his motion to suppress. Specifically, he contends that the police did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that he was engaged in any criminal activity and, therefore, that he was unlawfully detained, arrested, and searched. Moreover, he asserts that because the District Court did not conduct an evidentiary hearing, its "findings of fact are not supported by any evidence ad [it] did not apply the correct law to the facts."

Pursuant to § 46-13-302, MCA, a criminal defendant may move a district court to suppress any evidence which was obtained during an unlawful search and seizure. Furthermore, the statute provides, in relevant part, as follows: "If the motion [to suppress] states facts that, if true, would show that the evidence should be suppressed,the court shall hear the merits of the motion at the omnibus hearing or at a later date if the court orders." Section 46-13-302(2), MCA.

In this case, Roberts' motion to suppress contains the following recitation of facts:

On July 2, 1995 ... [Officer] Punt stopped a vehicle driven by John Lucero in which [Roberts] was a passenger. Punt stopped the vehicle because he believed an arrest warrant existed for Lucero. Once Punt stopped the vehicle, Roberts started to exit the vehicle and Punt told Roberts to remain in the vehicle. [Officer] Zidack arrived on the scene. Zidack asked Roberts to identify himself. Roberts identified himself. Zidack ran a warrant check on Roberts and found a valid arrest warrant. Zidack arrested Roberts on the warrant. While patting Roberts down for weapons, Zidack found a small compact on Roberts. Zidack seized the compact and looked inside. Zidack...