STATE v JENSEN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

PJo. 84-538 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F M N A A OTN 1985 STATE O MONTANA, F P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vsDELBERT JEPJSEN , D e f e n d a n t and Respondent. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Twelfth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f H i l l , The H o n o r a b l e Chan E t t i e n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUPSSEL O RECORD: F For A p p e l l a n t : Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana James S c h e i e r a r g u e d , A s s t . A t t y . G e n e r a l , Helena Ronald W. S m i t h , County A t t o r n e y , Havre, Montana Edward C o r r i g a n , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , Havre F o r Respondent : Law O f f i c e s o f F r a n k Altman; Havre, Montana Ivan E v i l s i z e r argued, - Submitted: Decided: Filed: AUG 6 -- 1985 Clerk May 231 1985 August 5 , 1985 Mr. J u s t i c e F r e d J. Weber d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . The State appeals from a pre-trial order suppressing e v i d e n c e s e i z e d i n a s e a r c h o f D e l b e r t J e n s e n ' s home by law enforcement Court o f f i c e r s with determined that a search warrant. the Justice of The D i s t r i c t t h e Peace issued the We find t h a t the application warrant without probable cause. contained s u f f i c i e n t probable cause t o support t h e issuance of t h e search warrant. W e reverse the order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. The i s s u e s on a p p e a l a r e : 1. Was t h e 2. If admissible search warrant based not, should the illegally under the "good faith Hill County upon p r o b a b l e seized cause? evidence exception1' be to the Sheriff Mark exclusionary rule? April On Stolen Jr., applied for a North, 24, 1984, t o J u s t i c e of search warrant Havre , Montana. Deputy t h e P e a c e Edward G. Vesecka, f o r a t r a i l e r a t 936 2nd Street Deputy S t o l e n ' s a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s e t f o r t h t h e following: "On A p r i l 1 7 , 1984, Dorothy C o c h r a n , o f 2865 7 t h S t r e e t E a s t , H a v r e , Montana, r e p o r t e d t o t h e H i l l County S h e r i f f ' s Department t h e t h e f t o f a y e l l o w , McCullough c h a i n saw, a W i n c h e s t e r 30-30 c a l i b e r l e v e r a c t i o n r i f l e , a M a r l i n 30-30 c a l i b e r l e v e r a c t i o n r i f l e , a H & R 10 gauge s i n g l e s h o t s h o t g u n and t a n c a n v a s b a g , and a M a r l i n .22 c a l i b e r r i f l e . "On A p r i l 1 8 , 1 9 8 4 , a n i n d i v i d u a l v o l u n t e e r e d t o Cochran t h a t h e had been i n v o l v e d i n t h e t h e f t o f h e r g u n s and p r o p e r t y . H e a l s o informed h e r t h a t some o f t h e i t e m s had b e e n pawned, w h i l e h e r g u n s had b e e n t r a d e d f o r d r u g s . Subsequently, M s . Cochran d i s c o v e r e d a t t h e R-Mew Pawn Shop, H a v r e , Montana, t h e c h a i n saw s h e had p r e v i o u s l y r e p o r t e d stolen a s w e l l a s other i t e m s of personal property. Ms. "On A p r i l 20, 1984, M s . C o c h r a n l s i n f o r m e r r e t u r n e d t o h e r o n e o f t h e r i f l e s h e had s t o l e n and exH e a l s o t o l d h e r t h e exchange changed f o r d r u g s . had t a k e n p l a c e a t a w h i t e t r a i l e r , 936 2nd S t r e e t A t that location, Ms. N o r t h , Havre, Montana. Cochran c o n f r o n t e d a n i n d i v i d u a l named Ben and was Ms. g i v e n h e r s t o l e n 30-30 W i n c h e s t e r r i f l e . C o c h r a n ' s . 2 2 c a l i b e r r i f l e and M e r l i n [ s i c ] 30-30 c a l i b e r r i f l e h a v e n o t y e t been r e c o v e r e d . "Ms. Cochran a l s o l e a r n e d from h e r i n f o r m a n t t h a t h e r s h o t g u n had b e e n t r a d e d f o r $40.00 w o r t h o f Columbian m a r i j u a n a . Ms. Cochran h a s a l s o b e e n t o l d by a n i n d i v i d u a l named Sonny, who s t a y s w i t h V i r g i n i a B e r n a r d i , t h a t he had t r a d e d a t t h e t r a i l e r a t 936 2nd S t r e e t N o r t h , Havre, Montana, a 30-30 r i f l e f o r $105.00 w o r t h o f m a r i j u a n a . "On A p r i l 1 0 , 1 9 8 4 , Ron C r o c k e r , 926 2nd S t r e e t N o r t h , H a v r e , Montana, complained t o t h e H i l l County Sheriff 's Department that he believed Delbert Jensen, Ben M o r r i s , and Penny Genger, r e s i d e n t s o f a t r a i l e r on 2nd S t r e e t N o r t h , H a v r e , In Montana, e a s t o f h i s home, w e r e s e l l i n g d r u g s . C r o c k e r had t h e l a s t week o f March, 1984, M r . w i t n e s s e d a n exchange a t t h a t l o c a t i o n o f money and what h e b e l i e v e d t o b e m a r i j u a n a . M r . Crocker a l s o h e a r d , on a n o t h e r o c c a s i o n , o n e 1 3 o r 1 4 y e a r o l d boy s a y t o a n o t h e r who had gone t o D e l b e r t J e n s e n ' s t r a i l e r , ' d i d you g e t t h e s t u f f ? ' M r . Crocker a l s o complained t h a t a - l a r g e amount o f t r a f f i c had been s t o p p i n g , on a d a i l y b a s i s , a t D e l b e r t J e n s e n ' s t r a i l e r ; t h a t a v e h i c l e ' s m o t o r o f t e n would b e l e f t r u n n i n g w h i l e a n o c c u p a n t went i n t o t h e t r a i l e r f o r a s h o r t t i m e and t h e n l e f t . "On A p r i l 21, 1984, a c o n c e r n e d c i t i z e n a l s o comp l a i n e d a b o u t h e a v y t r a f f i c on 2nd S t r e e t N o r t h , Havre, Montana; t h a t h e r c a t had a l m o s t b e e n h i t by a c a r d r i v e n by an i n d i v i d u a l d e s c r i b e d t o h e r by neighborhood k i d s a s a 'dope d e a l e r . ' Neighborhood k i d s a l s o t o l d h e r t h i s 'dope d e a l e r ' bought h i s d r u g s from p e o p l e on 2nd S t r e e t N o r t h . " I , Mark S t o l e n , have been a law e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i I t h a s been my e x p e r i e n c e t h a t t h e e v e n t s and u n u s u a l t r a f f i c d e s c r i b e d by Ron C r o c k e r and ' c o n c e r n e d c i t i z e n s ' a r e i n d i c a t i v e o f I h a v e known M s . t r a n s a c t i o n s i n dangerous drugs. Cochran f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s and b e l i e v e h e r s t a t e m e n t s a r e t r u s t w o r t h y and v a l u a b l e . It has a l s o been my e x p e r i e n c e t h a t s t a t e m e n t s o f c o n c e r n e d c i t i z e n s , p e r s o n a l l y u n i n v o l v e d , a r e r e l i a b l e and important leads t o follow." cer f o r 12 y e a r s . Based upon Deputy S t o l e n ' s a p p l i c a t i o n and s u p p o r t i n g a f f i d a vit, the Justice of defendant's t h e Peace i s s u e d trailer. a search warrant f o r No o t h e r sworn t e s t i m o n y o r e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e J u s t i c e o f t h e P e a c e p r i o r t o i s s u a n c e of t h e warrant. On A p r i l 27, 1984, H i l l County Deputy S h e r i f f s , Havre C i t y P o l i c e and o f f i c i a l s from t h e S t a t e Department o f F i s h , Wildlife and Parks searched defendant's s e i z e d more t h a n 60 grams o f m a r i j u a n a , cocaine and a rifle. charged w i t h t h e f t , juana), Defendant criminal residence. They drug paraphernalia, Jensen was arrested s a l e o f dangerous drugs c r i m i n a l possession o f dangerous drugs and (mari- (marijuana), criminal possession of paraphernalia, and criminal possession of dangerous drugs (cocaine). He pled not guilty to each count. Defense counsel filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence seized during the search based upon lack of sufficient facts in the application to show probable cause for issuance of the warrant. Following a hearing on the motion and relying solely on the information contained within the four corners of the application, the District Court found a lack of probable cause and granted defendant's motion. The State appeals. To determine whether there was probable cause to issue the search warrant, we must look only at the information contained in the four corners of the application. Isom (1982), 196 Mont. 330, 641 P.2d 417. State v. The test for determining whether an informant's tip establishes probable cause for issuance of a search warrant is the "totality of the circumstances" test set forth in Illinois v. Gates (1983), 462 U.S. 213, 238-39: "[Wle conclude that it is wiser to abandon the 'two-pronged test' established by our decisions in ~ ~ u i l a r Spinelli. In its place we reaffirm the and totality-of-the-circumstances analysis that traditionally has informed probable-cause determinations. The task of the issuing magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit before him, including the 'veracity' and 'basis of knowledge' of persons supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place. And the duty of a reviewing court is simply to ensure that the magistrate had a 'substantial basis for conclud [ing]' that probable cause existed. " (citations omitted) ... This "totality-of-the-circumstances" analysis was adopted in Montana in 1983. State v. Kelly (Mont. 1983), 668 P.2d 1032, The issuing magistrate must only determine that there is a probability, not a prima facie showing of criminal activi- ty. State v. O'Neill (Mont. 1984), 679 P.2d 760, 764, 41 St.Rep. The d u t y o f a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t i s s i m p l y t o 420, 423. e n s u r e t h a t t h e m a g i s t r a t e had a s u b s t a n t i a l b a s i s f o r concluding t h a t probable cause t o i s s u e a search warrant e x i s t S t a t e v. ed. St.Rep. Erler (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 672 P.2d 624, 627, 40 1915, 1918. find We that the information contained in Deputy S t o l e n ' s a f f i d a v i t provides a s u b s t a n t i a 1 b a s i s f o r concluding that there was probable cause to issue the search warrant. The a f f i d a v i t d e s c r i b e d t h e p l a c e where s t o l e n p r o p e r t y had b e e n exchanged f o r d r u g s and t h e k i n d o f d r u g s i n v o l v e d "At t h a t i n t h e exchange. The a f f i d a v i t f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t : Cochran c o n f r o n t e d a n i n d i v i d u a l named Ben and location, Ms. Winchester r i f l e . " was g i v e n h e r s t o l e n 30-30 t h e s t o l e n r i f l e by t h e c i t i z e n - i n f o r m a n t ration of her reliability. Retrieval of i s s t r o n g corrobo- Cochran' s r e l i a b i l i t y Ms. is f u r t h e r b u t t r e s s e d by Deputy S t o l e n ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t h e had known h e r "for s e v e r a l y e a r s and b e l i e v e [ d l h e r s t a t e m e n t s a r e t r u s t w o r t h y and v a l u a b l e . " The a f f i d a v i t f u r t h e r d e s c r i b e s i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e n by two other citizen-informants who complained t h a t r e s i d e n t s o f t h e t r a i l e r w e r e s e l l i n g d r u g s and t h a t , a s a r e s u l t , heavy? d a i l y complained what he another traffic that on their street. h e had w i t n e s s e d believed to be occasion, he had Informant a n exchange o f marijuana overheard t h e r e was money at the trailer a boy ask a Crocker for and, on companion r e t u r n i n g from t h e t r a i l e r , "Did you g e t t h e s t u f f ? " This information corroborates M s . Cochran's t i p t h a t s t o l e n prop- e r t y had been exchanged f o r m a r i j u a n a a t t h e t r a i l e r . M. r C r o c k e r a l s o complained about t h e l a r g e amount o f t r a f f i c stopping d a i l y a t t h e t r a i l e r , o f t e n with motors l e f t running. Crocker's information regarding t h e unusually l a r g e amount o f t r a f f i c a t t h e t r a i l e r was c o r r o b o r a t e d by a n o t h e r citizen-informant's complaint that t h e r e was heavy traffic and h e r c a t was a l m o s t h i t by a c a r d r i v e n by a n i n d i v i d u a l whom neighborhood children described as a "dope dealer." Deputy S t o l e n ' s a f f i d a v i t a l s o s t a t e s t h a t h e had been a law e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r f o r t w e l v e y e a r s and t h a t , i n h i s e x p e r i ence, the events and unusual traffic described by these concerned c i t i z e n s a r e i n d i c a t i v e o f t r a n s a c t i o n s i n dangerous drugs. In citizen-informant is 668 P.2d St.Rep. Kelly, reliable. citing the Montana, S t a t e v. 1161. Crime Leistiko victim citizen-informant. years and a t 1043, (1978), Dorothy 40 accepted 176 Mont. Cochran at 434, was as 1411, 578 P.2d the primary Deputy S t o l e n had known h e r f o r s e v e r a l believed her to be trustworthy. The other citizen-informants witnessed a c t i v i t i e s t h a t corroborated M s . Cochran's information. Additional hearsay information from t i p s t e r s who made admissions interests. has This Court warrants where criminal activity or given all the an even in some P.2d 760, 4 1 St.Rep. P.2d 1 0 3 2 , 4 0 St.Rep. 420; their or in that, probability of (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 679 (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 668 1400. R e l i a b l e h e a r s a y i n f o r m a t i o n may be c o n s i d e r e d t o e s t a b l i s h p r o b a b l e c a u s e . a t 1043, 40 St.Rep. search participated the Kelly came own p e n a l issuance of OfNeill S t a t e v. affidavit innocent a c t i v i t y supports S e e S t a t e v. criminal activity. the seen has circumstances, the against upheld informant in a t 1411. Kelly, 668 P.2d R e l i a b i l i t y may b e deduced from corroborative evidence o r surrounding f a c t s t h a t possess an internal coherence that supports the probability gives , 104 S.Ct. to t h a t evidence of found i n a p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e . U.S. weight the whole and a c r i m e w i l l be Massachusetts v. Upton (1984), 2085, 2088. W e f i n d t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n c o n t a i n s an adequate b a s i s f o r c o n c l u d i n g t h e r e was a f a i r p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t e v i d e n c e o f a crime would b e found a t t h e J e n s e n t r a i l e r . W e hold t h a t t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t was s u p p o r t e d by p r o b a b l e cause. Having found t h e w a r r a n t t o b e v a l i d , it i s u n n e c e s s a r y t o d i s c u s s t h e s e c o n d i s s u e r a i s e d by t h e S t a t e r e g a r d i n g t h e "good f a i t h e x c e p t i o n " t o t h e e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e . The o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d , and t h i s c a u s e i s remanded for trial. W e concur:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.