Posted by Paul Sullivan
on July 16, 2009
MT Decisions
State v. Schwartz – 2009 MT 234
After selling marijuana twice to a confidential informant (CI) who was wearing a wire, Schwartz was arrested and charged with distribution of dangerous drugs. Because the police failed to obtain a warrant authorizing the electronic surveillance, Schwartz filed a motion to suppress “all statements, cash, drugs, observations and other evidence obtained as the result of an illegal warantless search conducted by a confidential informant outfitted with a body wire.” The District Court denied the motion based primarily on State v. Brown, 232 Mont. 1 (1988), which held that one participant to a conversation can consent to having it electronically monitored without the necessity of a search warrant. After the denial of his motion, Schwartz pled guilty, but reserved his right to appeal.
Despite the fact that State v. Goetz, 2008 MT 296, effectively over ruled Brown (holding that electronic monitoring and recording of an individual’s conversations with the confidential informant in that case constituted a search subject to the warrant requirement of Article II, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution), SCOMONT ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support Schwartz’s guilty plea wholly apart from the electronic surveillance. The District Court’s decision was affirmed.
After selling marijuana twice to a confidential informant who was wearing a wire, Schwartz was arrested and charged with distribution of dangerous drugs. Because the police failed to obtain a warrant authorizing the electronic surveillance, Schwartz filed a motion to suppress “all statements, cash, drugs, observations and other evidence obtained as the result of an illegal warantless search conducted by a confidential informant outfitted with a body wire.” The District Court denied the motion based primarily on State v. Brown, 232 Mont. 1 (1988), which held that one participant to a conversation can consent to having it electronically monitored without the necessity of a search warrant. After the denial of his motion, Schwartz pled guilty, but reserved his right to appeal.
Despite the fact that State v. Goetz, 2008 MT 296, effectively over ruled Brown (holding that electronic monitoring and recording of an individual’s conversations with the confidential informant in that case constituted a search subject to the warrant requirement of Article II, Section 11 of the Montana Constitution), SCOMONT ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support Schwartz’s guilty plea wholly apart from the electronic surveillance. The District Court’s decision was affirmed.
Download State v. Schwartz
Tags: Criminal Law, Electronic Monitoring, Plea Withdrawal, Search and Seizure
