State v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | DA 18-0201 |
| Citation | 471 P.3d 733,2020 MT 222,401 Mont. 175 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Stephen THOMAS, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Chad Wright, Appellate Defender, Kristen L. Peterson, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana
For Appellee: Timothy C. Fox, Montana Attorney General, Katie F. Schulz, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Marty Lambert, Gallatin County Attorney, Bradley D. Bowen, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana
¶1 Defendant and Appellant Stephen Thomas (Thomas) appeals from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress issued by the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, on December 21, 2017, along with the accompanying Sentencing Order entered on February 16, 2018.
¶2 We restate the issue on appeal as follows:
Whether the district court erred in denying Thomas's motion to suppress evidence found during a probation search of the room Thomas rented from a person on probation.
¶3 We reverse and remand for dismissal of the criminal possession of a dangerous drug charge against Thomas.
¶4 Thomas and his wife were homeless for nearly a year around 2016. His wife was sick and dying. While renting a room at a Super 8, Thomas learned of a potential place to rent from one of the hotel employees. The employee's sister, Parischere Hughes (Paris) had a detached outbuilding in her backyard available to rent. Thomas then met Paris, who he did not know before, and entered into a rental arrangement with her. Thomas rented the outbuilding behind Paris's residence for $400 per month. Paris owned the main trailer residence where she resided and the outbuilding rented by Thomas, but leased the underlying real property. The outbuilding rented by Thomas was located some feet away from the main residence, inside a fence that surrounded the property. The outbuilding lacked running water, plumbing, a bathroom, or kitchen facilities, but was wired for electricity and had a light switch. It was large enough for a bed, desk, and end tables. Thomas spent the majority of his time in the outbuilding but did use the toilet and shower, and occasionally the kitchen, in the main trailer residence. At times, when Paris was away, he cared for her dog and cat, which lived primarily in the main residence. Thomas and his wife kept all their belongings in the outbuilding. Paris did not reside in or access the outbuilding she rented to Thomas. Thomas generally kept the outbuilding locked—using a padlock when away and an interior door wedge when at home. Thomas and his wife resided in the outbuilding for several months in 2016, then moved out for a while, and then returned. Shortly thereafter, Thomas's wife died and he continued to reside in the outbuilding by himself.
¶5 Having previously been convicted, Paris was on misdemeanor probation and subject to probation searches. In particular, Paris's misdemeanor sentencing order included the following:
The defendant's person, residence and vehicle shall be subject to warrantless searches at any time, day or night, by a misdemeanor probation officer, police officer, or other lawful authority acting under the direction of the probation officer, to assess compliance with the rules of probation. If the defendant resides with other persons, all places in the defendant's residence where the defendant has access are subject to search, even those private rooms of other persons with whom the defendant resides, unless those rooms are locked and the defendant does not have access to those rooms.
¶6 Prior to permitting Thomas and his wife to move into the outbuilding, Paris's probation officer Gen Stasiak did background checks on them. Thomas had a single previous felony conviction, which was nearly 20 years old. Finding nothing precluding them from living in the outbuilding, Stasiak approved the rental arrangement. When Paris did not report for drug/alcohol testing on December 16 and 19, 2016, Stasiak suspected Paris to be using drugs. On December 23, 2016, Stasiak, along with law enforcement officers, went to Paris's residence to conduct a probation search. No one answered when they initially knocked on the trailer house door, but officers could hear dogs barking inside. When Stasiak and the officers arrived, Thomas was in his residence in the outbuilding. Upon hearing the dogs, he came outside to investigate. Upon doing so, he did not lock his residence. He encountered an officer inside the back fence who instructed Thomas to go in Paris's residence and open the front door. He complied.
¶7 Upon opening the front door as instructed, officers came inside the trailer and instructed Thomas as well as Everett Bolles—who was residing in Paris's residence and was apparently home—to sit on the couch. Again, Thomas complied. Officers searched the residence and found various items of contraband. Stasiak then determined as Thomas had not locked his residence it too was subject to search. Stasiak did not ask for Thomas's consent to search his residence and Thomas gave no consent to search his residence. In Thomas's residence, officers found a very old bottle of "Ipecac and opium powder" which Thomas testified was "sort of a family relic" from when his wife's family owned a pharmacy. See picture below. They also found marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia.
Approximately three months later, Thomas was charged with criminal possession of dangerous drugs, a felony, for the opium bottle.
¶8 Thomas filed a motion to suppress the evidence found in his residence, asserting the search exceeded the scope of any lawful probation search of Paris's residence. Following a hearing, the District Court denied Thomas's motion. The District Court found the search justified as there was reasonable suspicion for a probation search of Paris's residence; Paris and Thomas "were roommates that resided together in the same residence, albeit in separate areas, such that [Paris's] conditions of probation authorized a valid probationary search of [Thomas's] room"; and Thomas's room was unlocked and thus accessible to Paris. Thomas appeals.
¶9 We review the denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether the district court's interpretation and application of the law is correct. State v. Conley , 2018 MT 83, ¶ 9, 391 Mont. 164, 415 P.3d 473. Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if not supported by substantial credible evidence, if the court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if this Court's review leaves a definite or firm conviction a mistake has been made. Conley , ¶ 9.
¶10 Whether the District Court erred in denying Thomas's motion to suppress evidence found during a probation search of the outbuilding Thomas rented from a person on probation.
¶11 Thomas asserts the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress as the outbuilding he rented from Paris was his separate residence in which he had a reasonable expectation of privacy that was entitled to "the full protections of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as the heightened privacy protections of the Montana Constitution." Thomas contends the District Court erred in allocating the burden of proving the illegality of the search to Thomas, the District Court misapplied State v. Finley , 2011 MT 218, 362 Mont. 35, 260 P.3d 175, and erred in determining that as he did not lock his residence to prevent Paris from potentially entering it, he forfeited his legitimate expectation of privacy.
¶12 The State contends that based on how the hearing was conducted and the District Court's findings and conclusions, the court appropriately placed the burden of establishing a legal justification for the warrantless search on the State.1 Further, the State asserts the District Court articulated sufficient basis to support a reasonable suspicion Paris was in violation of her probation such that a probation search was permitted. The State argues Thomas's "room" was not a separate dwelling apart from Paris's residence and, particularly as there was no lock on the room's door, it was reasonable to conclude Paris had access to Thomas's room and it was thus subject to a probation search.
¶13 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by government officials. Article II, Section 10, of the Montana Constitution provides the "right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest." Individuals shall be secure in their "homes and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures." Mont. Const., art. II, § 11. We address Article II, §§ 10 and 11 in analyzing and resolving a search or seizure issue that specifically implicates the right to privacy. State v. Goetz , 2008 MT 296, ¶ 14, 345 Mont. 421, 191 P.3d 489 (citations omitted). Further, in light of Article II, § 10 ’s right to privacy, we have held the range of warrantless searches which may be conducted pursuant to Montana's Constitution is narrower than the corresponding range of searches which may be lawfully conducted under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Goetz , ¶ 14 (citing State v. Hardaway , 2001 MT 252, ¶ 35, 307 Mont. 139, 36 P.3d 900 ).
¶14 Warrantless searches inside a home are per se unreasonable unless the State establishes an exception to the warrant requirement justified the search. Finley , ¶ 15.
In analyzing the officer's entrance of the home, however, we restated the indelible rule that warrantless searches conducted inside a home are per se unreasonable, ‘subject only to a few specifically...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Mefford
...to determine whether the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its legal conclusions are correct." State v. Thomas, 2020 MT 222, 9, 401 Mont. 175, 471 P.3d 733 (citation omitted). "Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if not supported by substantial credible ......
-
State v. Mefford
...to determine whether the district court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether its legal conclusions are correct." State v. Thomas , 2020 MT 222, ¶ 9, 401 Mont. 175, 471 P.3d 733 (citation omitted). "Findings of fact are clearly erroneous if not supported by substantial credib......