State v. Whisler
| Decision Date | 05 August 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. DA 07-0472.,DA 07-0472. |
| Parties | STATE of Montana, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Lindsey Denae WHISLER, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellant: Jim Wheelis, Chief Appellate Defender; Roberta R. Zenker, Assistant Appellate Defender, Helena, Montana.
For Appellee: Hon. Mike McGrath, Attorney General; Daniel Guzynski, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, Montana, Dennis Paxinos, Yellowstone County Attorney; Ingrid A. Rosenquist, Deputy County Attorney, Billings, Montana.
¶ 1 Lindsey Denae Whisler (Whisler) appeals from the denial of her motion to suppress evidence by the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, relating to her conviction for felony possession of dangerous drugs. We affirm.
¶ 2 We review the following issue on appeal:
¶ 3 Did the District Court correctly deny Whisler's motion to suppress evidence?
¶ 4 Billings police officers responded to a complaint regarding a "strange smell" emanating from a guest room at the Red Roof Inn, on October 6, 2006. The hotel staff informed Officer Neil Lawrence and another officer that Whisler, a child, and an African-American male had occupied the room. The staff described the male as five feet six inches tall, weighing approximately two hundred pounds, and having a shaved head and gold front teeth. The officers contacted Whisler at the hotel room. The officers relayed the complaint to Whisler and left without taking any further action.
¶ 5 Officer Jordan Aguilar responded to a shooting complaint near the Billings airport on October 7, 2006. Whisler had called the Billings Police Department earlier that day to report that several people in a vehicle had followed her car and had shot at her car. Whisler reported that she was traveling on North 27th Street. Officer Aguilar was patrolling in the area at the time of Whisler's call. Officer Aguilar remained in the area and waited to make contact with Whisler.
¶ 6 Whisler did not arrive. Officer Aguilar headed toward the area that Whisler had described as the location of the shooting. Officer Aguilar made contact with an African-American male walking in the vicinity of the shooting. This person identified himself as Aaron Turner and stated that he previously had lived in the "Bay Area." He had gold caps on his front teeth with the letters F-A-C-E. He stated that he was simply "wandering around" when the officers contacted him.
¶ 7 Officer Aguilar eventually interviewed Whisler at the police station regarding the reported shooting near the airport. Whisler refrained initially from providing the identities of the passengers in her car during the shooting. She ultimately stated that her child, her boyfriend, and another person had been in the car. Whisler identified her boyfriend as an African-American male named Jamal Henderson who went by the street name of "Face." Officer Aguilar ran the name "Jamal Henderson" through the National Crime Information Center database. The database revealed that a person named Jamal Henderson from Oakland, California, had a record of violent offenses.
¶ 8 Officer Lawrence did not participate directly in the investigation of the shooting that had occurred near the airport. Officer Lawrence learned details of the shooting, however, from other officers and their investigation. The shooting near the airport reportedly had involved Whisler and her vehicle. Officers had found an abandoned vehicle in the vicinity of the airport that officers had linked to a separate shooting that had taken place a few weeks earlier. The investigation revealed that some people might have participated in both shootings. A jogger had discovered a shotgun and semi-automatic rifle abandoned in the area of the shooting near the airport. Officer Lawrence's sergeant informed him that officers had made contact near the airport with a person identified both, as Jamal Henderson, and, as Aaron Turner. The officers' description of this person matched the description provided by the Red Roof Inn staff of the African-American male who had stayed with Whisler.
¶ 9 Officer Lawrence searched the parking lots of area hotels for Whisler's vehicle on October 8, 2006, in an attempt to locate Whisler and her boyfriend. Officer Lawrence had determined to arrest Whisler's boyfriend for obstructing justice for giving a false name when questioned by officers regarding the shooting. Officer Lawrence sought to obtain the true identity of Whisler's boyfriend and to ascertain his level of involvement in the shootings. Officer Lawrence located Whisler's car at the Comfort Inn. Hotel staff confirmed that a couple matching the descriptions of Whisler and her boyfriend occupied Room 121.
¶ 10 Officer Lawrence called in additional officers, including Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team members, to assist with the contact. Six officers converged on Room 121. Two officers covered the window of Room 121 while Officer Lawrence and three additional officers approached the room's door. Five of the officers had long rifles and one officer had a duty handgun. The officers held their weapons at the low-ready position as they approached the room.
¶ 11 Officer Lawrence knocked on the door. Someone inside the room asked who had knocked. Officer Lawrence stated that Billings police officers stood outside and advised the person to open the door. Whisler's boyfriend opened the door. The officers ordered him to the ground. Whisler's boyfriend complied, laying on the ground with his body half in and half out of the hotel room. Officers Lawrence and Aguilar entered the room while an additional officer placed Whisler's boyfriend, still lying on the ground, in handcuffs.
¶ 12 The officers discovered Whisler in the room and ordered her to leave the room. The officers then conducted what they described as a "protective sweep" that lasted approximately ten to twenty seconds. Officer Lawrence saw a glass pipe on the bed during the sweep. He also saw a plastic bag that appeared to contain marijuana sticking out of a black bag on an end table during the sweep.
¶ 13 The officers arrested Whisler for possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia and transported her to the Yellowstone County Detention Facility. Whisler admitted to officers at the detention center that she possessed methamphetamine. The officers located a small bag on Whisler and tested the bag's contents. The contents field-tested positive for methamphetamine. Officers learned as a result of the arrests that Curtis Turner (Turner) was the true name of Whisler's boyfriend.
¶ 14 The State charged Whisler with a felony drug charge for the methamphetamine found on her person and two misdemeanor charges for the marijuana and the pipe found in the hotel room. Whisler moved the District Court to suppress the evidence of the drugs found during the hotel investigation. The court orally denied Whisler's motion. Whisler pled guilty to the felony drug charge and the State dismissed the misdemeanor charges. Whisler appeals the District Court's denial of her motion to suppress.
¶ 15 We review a district court's denial of a motion to suppress to determine whether the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous and whether it correctly interpreted and applied the law. State v. Cooney, 2006 MT 318, ¶ 9, 335 Mont. 55, ¶ 9, 149 P.3d 554, ¶ 9. We will deem a district court's findings of fact clearly erroneous if they are unsupported by substantial evidence, if the district court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if the district court made a mistake. Cooney, ¶ 9.
¶ 16 We review a district court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gomez, 2007 MT 111, ¶ 18, 337 Mont 219, ¶ 18, 158 P.3d 442, ¶ 18. A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily without conscientious judgment or exceeds the bounds of reason. Gomez, ¶ 18.
¶ 17 Did the District Court correctly deny Whisler's motion to suppress evidence?
¶ 18 Whisler argues that the District Court should have granted her motion to suppress the evidence that she possessed methamphetamine. Whisler first asserts that the District Court abused its discretion when it permitted the State to ask leading questions during the hearing on Whisler's motion to suppress. The State responds that the rules of evidence do not apply at a hearing on a motion to suppress.
¶ 19 We previously have stated that the rules of evidence do not apply in a suppression hearing with regard to whether adequate foundational evidence existed for admitting the results of an analyzer of breath alcohol concentration. State v. Delaney, 1999 MT 317, ¶ 16, 297 Mont. 263, ¶ 16, 991 P.2d 461, ¶ 16. We relied in Delaney on Rule 104(a) of the Montana Rules of Evidence. Rule 104(a) provides: We recognized in Delaney the similarity between Montana's Rule 104(a) and Rule 104(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Delaney, ¶ 15. We noted that federal courts also have permitted trial courts to consider evidence normally inadmissible at trial in determining whether an adequate foundation existed for the admission of evidence. Delaney, ¶ 15. We concluded in Delaney that Rule 104(a) authorized the court to consider a certification form that may have constituted inadmissible hearsay when determining the admissibility of breathalyzer results. Delaney, ¶ 16.
¶ 20 Whisler argues that to refrain from applying the rules of evidence at suppression hearings would violate significant constitutional rights. The State notes that the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the rules of evidence do not apply in pretrial...
To continue reading
Request your trial