State v. West, 98-184
| Decision Date | 18 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-184,98-184 |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 1998 MT 282 STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Scott K. WEST, Defendant and Appellant. |
John O. Putikka, Thompson Falls, for Appellant.
Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General; Jennifer Anders, Ass't Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Robert Slomski, Sanders County Attorney, Thompson Falls, for Respondent.
¶1 Appellant Scott K. West (West) appeals from the Twentieth Judicial District Court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm the decision of the District Court.
¶2 West was charged with Criminal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, Criminal Possession with Intent to Sell, Criminal Possession of Dangerous Drugs (two counts), and Use or Possession of Property Subject to Criminal Forfeiture. These charges arose out of an incident in which West was arrested in conjunction with the execution of a search warrant on his property near Hot Springs, Sanders County, Montana. Sanders County Attorney Robert Slomski had prepared an initial application for a search warrant. However, due to computer difficulties, he was unable to retrieve the document from his computer disc. Accordingly, Slomski requested assistance from Lake Deputy County Attorney, Mitchell Young. Judge C.B. McNeil, who presides over both Lake and Sanders Counties, resides in Polson and was more accessible to Young. Judge McNeil, based upon application from Young, issued the warrant authorizing a search of West's residence in Sanders County.
¶3 West moved to suppress all evidence seized as a result of the warrant contending that Lake Deputy County Attorney Young, who prepared and filed the application for the warrant, had no authority to apply for a warrant to be executed in Sanders County. The District Court, the Honorable Michael C. Prezeau presiding, denied the motion holding that, even if there were a violation of statutory authority, the alleged violation did not affect West's substantial rights. West entered a plea of guilty pursuant to §§ 46-20-104 and 46-12-204(3), MCA, reserving his right to appeal from the order denying his motion to suppress. We agree with the District Court's analysis in denying the motion.
¶4 We review a district court's conclusions of law regarding a motion to suppress to determine whether the district court's interpretation of the law is correct. State v. Pipkin, 1998 MT 143, p 10, --- Mont. ----, p 10, 961 P.2d 733, p 10, 55 St.Rep. 567, p 10.
¶5 West argues that only certain individuals are authorized by law to make application for search warrants. He references § 46-5-220, MCA, which provides: "A peace officer, the city or county attorney, or the attorney general may apply for a search warrant." Section 46-5-220, MCA (emphasis added). West contends that when the statute states "the county attorney," it means the county attorney in the county where the warrant is to be executed. Thus, he argues that Deputy Lake County Attorney Young had no authority to apply for a search warrant to be executed in Sanders County. He suggests that Deputy Lake County Attorney Young is nothing more than a "private person" outside of Lake County. We need not address the question of whether a deputy county attorney from one county has authority to apply for a search warrant to be executed in another county. Even assuming, arguendo, that there is merit to this argument, the error does not affect the substantial rights of the person whose property is searched. A search and seizure, whether with or without a warrant, may not be held illegal if any irregularity in the proceeding has no effect on the substantial rights of the accused. See § 46-5-103, MCA.
¶6 In denying West's motion to suppress, the District Court stated:
When law enforcement officers go through the considerable effort to secure a search warrant, only to be told later that the search was invalid for some nonsubstantive reason having nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of probable cause, there is an unfortunate and natural tendency for them to next time search for an exception to the warrant requirement that would allow them to proceed without submitting the proposed search...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kelm
...rule will not apply to violations of statutory requirements unless the violation affects the accused's substantial rights. State v. West, 1998 MT 282, ¶¶ 8–9, 291 Mont. 435, 968 P.2d 289 (citing State v. Pipkin, 1998 MT 143, ¶ 27, 289 Mont. 240, 961 P.2d 733);see also§ 46–5–103(1)(b), (c), ......
-
State v. Robertson, DA 17-0717
...application affected the substantial rights of the accused. Kasparek , ¶ 8 (citing Muir , ¶ 11 ; State v. West , 1998 MT 282, ¶ 8, 291 Mont. 435, 968 P.2d 289 ). An issuing judge’s determination that probable cause exists is entitled to "great deference" and a reviewing court must make ever......
-
State v. Kasparek
...to affect the substantial rights of the accused. Muir v. Bilderback, 2015 MT 180, ¶ 11, 379 Mont. 459, 353 P.3d 473 (citing State v. West, 1998 MT 282, ¶ 8, 291 Mont. 435, 968 P.2d 289 ). We have adopted the “totality of the circumstances test” to evaluate the existence of probable cause in......
-
State v. Minett
...enforcement officers to seek prior judicial approval before conducting searches and to conduct those searches pursuant to warrant.” State v. West, 1998 MT 282, ¶¶ 6, 8, 291 Mont. 435, 968 P.2d 289. Officer Tymofichuk's action in obtaining a warrant for the blood test was not prohibited by t......