State v. Wakeford

• Decision Date: 30 January 1998
• Docket Number: No. 97-067,97-067
• Citation: State v. Wakeford, 287 Mont. 220, 953 P.2d 1065, 1998 MT 16, 55 St.Rep. 56 (Mont. 1998)
• Parties: , 1998 MT 16 STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Daniel Allan WAKEFORD, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 1065

953 P.2d 1065

287 Mont. 220, 1998 MT 16

STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.Daniel Allan WAKEFORD, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 97-067.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs Nov. 20, 1997.

Decided Jan. 30, 1998.

Steven M. Hudspeth, Great Falls, for Defendant and Appellant.

Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, John Paulson, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Brant Light, Cascade County Attorney, Jeffrey Mora, DeputyCascade County Attorney, Great Falls, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

REGNIER, Justice.

¶1Daniel Allan Wakeford was charged by information on June 27, 1995, with the offenses of criminal possession of dangerous drugs, a felony, and misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia.Wakeford filed a motion to suppress physical evidence found after a warrantless search of his motel room.The Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, denied the motion.Wakeford entered into a plea agreement with the State in which he agreed to plead guilty to the charge of felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs and the State agreed to dismiss the misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia.Wakeford reserved the right to appeal from the District Court's denial of his motion to suppress.The District Court sentenced Wakeford to the Department of Corrections for a term of five years with the recommendation that he be placed in a prerelease center.Wakeford appeals from the sentence and judgment of the District Court and from the order denying his motion to suppress.We affirm.

¶2 The only issue raised on appeal is whether the District Court erred in denying Wakeford's motion to suppress evidence in which Wakeford argued that the evidence found in his motel room was gathered pursuant to an illegal search and seizure.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶3 At 9:44 a.m. on June 4, 1995, Officers Pat Brickman and Robert McClellan of the Great Falls Police Department separately responded to the O'Hare Manor Motel in Great Falls on a dispatch call concerning a reportedly despondent and possibly suicidal male in Room 119.

¶4 After speaking with a desk clerk, they approached Room 119, where Wakeford was staying and heard voice of a male and female arguing inside.McClellan heard what he considered was a loud and heated argument.Both officers were concerned that they might be confronting a domestic abuse situation.

¶5 One of the officers knocked on the door and Wakeford responded by asking through the door who was there.The officers identified themselves and asked Wakeford to open the door.Wakeford initially refused to open the door, but then opened it partially after talking with the officers.

¶6 Wakeford opened the door sufficiently for the officers to see his face.Brickman noted that Wakeford's eyes were dilated and he was breathing rapidly.Wakeford appeared angry and upset.Brickman testified that he could see only part of Wakeford's body and could not see his hand which was behind the door.McClellan stated that he could not see Wakeford's hands at all.Neither officer heard anything coming from inside the motel room.

¶7 The officers told Wakeford that they were concerned and wanted to make sure that the female in the room was fine.Wakeford told the officers that he had been fighting with Justine Degele, but insisted that she was fine and did not open the door any further.The officers thought it was necessary to check on Degele despite Wakeford's assurances.The officers were also concerned for their own safety, as Wakeford remained partially hidden behind the door and they could not see if his hand held a weapon.

¶8 Once again, the officers told Wakeford that they needed to check on the woman in the room.He stepped back and they entered the room.The officers found Degele on the bed and spoke with her to make sure she was alright.She admitted that she had been fighting with Wakeford but stated that she was fine.

¶9 However, upon entering the room, the officers saw in plain view, on the counter and on the floor, a spoon with white powdery residue, a folded bindle, some cotton material and a dollar bill rolled up into a tube.McClellan then arrested Wakeford for possession of drug paraphernalia.Wakeford asserted his Miranda rights by not answering any questions.He did not consent to a search of his motel room and instead informed the officers that they needed to get a search warrant.The officers called for assistance and another officer, Sergeant Lockerby, arrived and conducted a field test on the residue.Wakeford was then transported to jail.

¶10 The officers secured the room and left.They went to the Cascade County Attorney's office to obtain a search warrant.At this time, McClellan was able to contact Mike Gersack, Wakeford's probation officer.Gersack told McClellan that Wakeford's probation agreement contained a clause that would allow the search of Wakeford's room upon a reasonable suspicion that he may have violated his parole.Gersack then gave the officers permission to search Wakeford's motel room.With Gersack's permission to search Wakeford's room, the officers abandoned their efforts to obtain a search warrant.

¶11 The officers returned to the room and seized the items they noticed earlier.The residue turned out to be amphetamine.McClellan returned to jail and wrote Wakeford a complaint for felony possession of dangerous drugs.

¶12 On June 27, 1995, Wakeford was charged by information in the Eighth Judicial District Court, Cascade County, with violations of: (1) § 45-1-102(1), MCA(1993), felony criminal possession of dangerous drugs; and (2) § 45-10-103, MCA(1993), misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia.

¶13 On December 4, 1995, Wakeford filed a motion to suppress.Wakeford sought to suppress all of the evidence that the officers gathered after entering Wakeford's motel room without a search warrant.An evidentiary hearing on the motion was held on February 26, 1996.On April 18, 1996, the District Court denied Wakeford's motion to suppress.

¶14 On July 16, 1996, Wakeford entered a plea of guilty, pursuant to § 45-1-102(1),MCA(1993), to the offense of felony criminal possession of drugs.The State agreed to dismiss the charge of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia.Wakeford reserved the right to appeal from the order denying his motion to suppress.

¶15 On October 11, 1996, the District Court sentenced Wakeford to the Montana Department of Corrections for a term of five years, with the recommendation that Wakeford was to be placed in a prerelease center.This sentence was to run concurrent with Wakeford's sentence in another Cascade County case.On October 25, 1996, the District Court's written judgment and sentencing order was filed.

¶16 On December 20, 1996, Wakeford filed a notice of appeal.Wakeford appeals from the sentence and judgment of the District Court and from the order denying his motion to suppress evidence.

DISCUSSION

¶17 Did the District Court err in denying Wakeford's motion to suppress evidence in which Wakeford argued that the evidence found in his motel room was gathered pursuant to an illegal search and seizure?

¶18 The standard of review for 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. Flack(1993), 260 Mont. 181, 185-88, 860 P.2d 89, 92-94.

¶19 On appeal, Wakeford challenges the authority of the officers to enter his motel room to conduct a warrantless search.Wakeford does not challenge the seizure of the drug paraphernalia, which the officers observed in plain view, or the validity of the subsequent search of the motel room, which was authorized by Wakeford's probation officer.Wakeford argues that the officers had no justification for conducting a warrantless search by entering his motel room and, therefore, all evidence seized from the room should be suppressed as fruits of an illegal entry.

¶20The State counters that the officers were justified in entering his motel room without a warrant under the "exigent circumstances" exception to the general prohibition against warrantless searches.

¶21 The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, andArticle II, Section 11, of the Montana Constitution, affords all persons the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.Warrantless searches and seizures conducted inside a home are per se unreasonable, subject to a few carefully drawn exceptions.State v. Rushton(1994), 264 Mont. 248, 870 P.2d 1355.The same protection against unreasonable searches and seizures that applies to private residences extends to guests in motel rooms.State v. Dow(1992), 256 Mont. 126, 844 P.2d 780.In Stoner v. California(1964), 376 U.S. 483, 490, 84 S.Ct. 889, 893, 11 L.Ed.2d 856, 861, the United States Supreme Court held that:

No less than a tenant of a house, or the occupant of a room in a boarding house, McDonald v. United States, 335 U.S. 451, 69 S.Ct. 191, 93 L.Ed. 153[1948,] a guest in a hotel room is entitled to constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436[1948].

¶22 One exception to the warrant requirement is where exigent circumstances and probable cause are present.Warden v. Hayden(1967), 387 U.S. 294, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782;State v. Sorenson(1979), 180 Mont. 269, 590 P.2d 136.Probable cause exists "if the facts and circumstances within the officer's personal knowledge, or imparted to the officer by a reliable source, are sufficient to warrant a reasonable person to believe that the suspect has committed an offense."State v. Schoffner(1991), 248 Mont. 260, 264, 811 P.2d 548, 551.

¶23 In upholding the warrantless search of Wakeford's motel room, the District Court relied on the "exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement.The exigent circumstances doctrine provides...