State v. Smith

• Decision Date: 15 January 2008
• Docket Number: No. DA 06-0287.,DA 06-0287.
• Citation: 2008 MT 7,176 P.3d 258,341 Mont, 82
• Parties: STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Karsten K. SMITH, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

176 P.3d 258

2008 MT 7

341 Mont, 82

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Karsten K. SMITH, Defendant and Appellant.

No. DA 06-0287.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs September 12, 2007.

Decided January 15, 2008.

For Appellant: Mathew M. Stevenson, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana.

For Appellee: Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; John Paulson, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Fred Van Valkenburg, Missoula. County Attorney; Andrew W. Paul, Deputy County Attorney, Missoula, Montana.

Chief Justice KARLA M. GRAY delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Karsten Karl Smith (Smith) appeals from the judgment entered by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, on his convictions for felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs and misdemeanor criminal possession of drug paraphernalia. We affirm in part and remand,

¶ 2 Smith raises the following issues on appeal:

¶ 3 1. Did the District Court err in denying Smith's motion to suppress evidence?

¶ 4 2. Did the District Court err in denying Smith's motion to dismiss the charges based on a violation of his right to a speedy trial?

BACKGROUND

¶ 5 On March 11, 2002, probation and parole officer Kathleen Beccari (Beccari) met with probationer Mark Dornan (Dornan). At the time, Dornan was living in Missoula, Montana, with his girlfriend Delores Shepherd (Shepherd). Shepherd's sister, Darlene Garcia (Garcia), who also was on probation, was supposed to be living at the same residence with Dornan and Shepherd. Dornan informed Beccari that Garcia had not lived with them for several months and, instead, had been living with her boyfriend Smith in a trailer on the Pruyn Ranch. Beccari reported this information to Garcia's probation officer, Tom Forsyth (Forsyth). Forsyth contacted Shepherd, who confirmed that Garcia had not lived with Dornan and Shepherd for several months and was living with Smith. Forsyth met with Garcia the following day and Garcia admitted that, although she previously reported she lived with Dornan and Shepherd, she actually was living with Smith on the Pruyn Ranch. Garcia then submitted to a drug test, which tested positive for methamphetamine, and she was arrested for violating the conditions of her probation. Based on the unreported change in residence and the positive drug test, Forsyth also determined a probation search of Garcia's residence at the Pruyn Ranch was justified.

¶ 6 Later that day, Forsyth, Beccari, a third probation officer, and officers from the Missoula County Sheriffs Office accompanied Garcia to the Pruyn Ranch. Garcia indicated she was fearful of Smith's reaction to a search of the trailer and stated she did not have a key to the trailer. The officers gained entry by prying open the trailer's back door. Upon searching, the officers found weapons, drug paraphernalia, and items used to manufacture and distribute drugs. They also found Garcia's purse and located some of her clothing in a closet.

¶ 7 After searching the trailer, the officers decided to apply for a search warrant to search a bus parked near the trailer. While they waited for the search warrant to arrive, Smith drove up to the trailer in a pickup truck. Based on the drug-related items found in the trailer, as well as one officer's knowledge that Smith's driver's license was suspended, Smith was arrested. In a search of his person incident to the arrest, officers discovered a large amount of cash, a marijuana pipe and a vial which Smith admitted contained methamphetamine. The officers later obtained a search warrant for Smith's truck and discovered a leather pouch containing nine bindles of methamphetamine. The search of the bus revealed chemical precursors to methamphetamine.

¶ 8 On April 16, 2002, the State of Montana (State) charged Smith by information with felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs and misdemeanor criminal possession of drug paraphernalia. The State amended the information on June 10, 2002, to add a third charge of felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs with intent to distribute. Smith moved to suppress all evidence obtained in the searches. The District Court denied Smith's motion to suppress on February 3, 2003.

¶ 9 The District Court eventually scheduled a jury trial for August 11, 2004. In late June of 2004, Smith moved to dismiss the charges against him on the basis that his constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated. The. District Court denied this motion. The court then vacated the trial setting without rescheduling the trial, and nothing further happened in this matter until the District Court ordered the parties to appear for a status conference on April 5, 2005. After several continuances of the status conference, the court scheduled the trial for November 9, 2005. On June 28, 2005, Smith again moved to dismiss the charges against him based on lack of a speedy trial. The District Court held a hearing and denied Smith's motion. Subsequently, in February of 2006, Smith appeared in the District Court and pled guilty to the offenses of criminal possession of dangerous drugs and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, reserving his right to appeal the court's denial of his pretrial motions. The District Court accepted. Smith's guilty pleas, sentenced him, and entered judgment on the convictions and sentences. Smith appeals.

DISCUSSION,

¶ 10 1. Did the District Court err in denying Smith's motion to suppress evidence?

¶ 11 Smith's motion to suppress all the evidence seized during the searches in this case asserted that the initial warrantless search of his trailer was unlawful because it was not justified as a probation search or by any other exception to the search warrant requirement. As a result, according to Smith, the subsequent searches of his person, bus and pickup truck also were unlawful as emanating from the initial unlawful search of the trailer.

¶ 12 The District Court determined that Garcia's unreported change in residence and positive drug test gave her probation officer, Forsyth, reasonable cause to conduct a probationary search of Garcia's new residence, which was Smith's trailer. The court further determined that Smith's subsequent arrest, the search of his person pursuant to that arrest, and the searches of his vehicles pursuant to warrants all were lawful. Consequently, the District Court denied Smith's motion to suppress evidence. Smith asserts error.

¶ 13 We review a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence to determine whether its findings of fact are clearly erroneous and its interpretation and application of the law correct. State v. Fritz, 2006 MT 202, ¶ 8, 383 Mont. 215, ¶ 8, 142 P.3d 806, ¶ 8.

¶ 14 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution guarantee an individual's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. It is well-established that a search conducted in the absence of a properly issued warrant based on probable cause is per se unreasonable absent a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. See e.g. State v. Copelton, 2006 MT 182, ¶ 10, 333 Mont. 91, ¶ 10, 140 P.3d 1074, ¶ 10 (citation omitted).

¶ 15 A search of a probationer's residence or effects, however, may be conducted without a search warrant and pursuant to the lesser standard of "reasonable cause," rather than probable cause. Fritz, ¶ 10; State v. Kriesel, 2000 MT 144, ¶ 12, 300 Mont. 44, ¶ 12, 2 P.3d 831, ¶ 12. The rationale for applying the lesser standard is that a probationer has a diminished expectation of privacy and a supervising probation officer is in a better position to determine the level of supervision necessary to provide rehabilitation to the probationer and safety to the community. Fritz, ¶ 10; Kriesel, ¶ 13. Determining the existence of reasonable cause to conduct a probationary search involves a factual inquiry based on the totality of the circumstances. Fritz, ¶ 10; Kriesel, ¶ 13.

¶ 16 Smith argues that the District Court's finding that Forsyth had sufficient information on which to determine Garcia was living at Smith's trailer on the Pruyn Ranch is clearly erroneous and cannot support the court's further finding that Forsyth had reasonable...