THIS APPEAL is from an order of the Fort Peck Tribal Court, Chief Judge Bemer presiding, in which he suppressed evidence obtained in the process of search within the Defendants' home in Poplar, Montana. The Court ruled that a SEARCH WARRANT should have been obtained by the officer handling the matter prior to the search.

    APPEARING FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLANTS (Victor and Patti Grant):  Clayton Reum, Wolf Point, Montana

    APPEARING FOR PLAINTIFF/APPELLEE (Fort Peck Tribes):  Ronald Arneson, Special Prosecutor, Wolf Point, Montana

    Argued:        August 6, 1990

    Decided:      August 6, 1990

    CRIMINAL:  ORDER SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE WAS PROPERLY GRANTED IN WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF APPELLANTS’ HOME WHERE EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES DID NOT EXIST FOR WARRANTLESS SEARCH.

    OPINION delivered by Gerard M. Schuster, Gary James Melbourne and Debra Johnson, Justices by unanimous opinion.

    HELD: ORDER SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OBTAINED IN WARRANTLESS LESS SEARCH OR APPELLANTS’ HOUSE IS SUSTAINED.

FACTS:

    Prior to the search of the Grant residence, a vehicle was seen leaving the Grant residence by officers while they were conducting a surveillance of the residence. The vehicle was stopped and the occupant was arrested after the officers determined that the driver was in possession of what they believed to be marijuana cigarettes. The person was taken to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Detention Center where she was interviewed. The information gained from the interview was that the marijuana was allegedly purchased from Victor Grant. Officers then proceeded to the Grant residence where a search of the home was conducted and resulted in the confiscation of several articles which the Prosecution contended were illegal drugs and contraband. Several people were arrested after the search.

    This incident occurred shortly after noon on September 15, 1989, during normal Court business hours.

    It is abundantly clear from the transcript presented in this matter that the statements given by the female arrested and taken to the BIA Detention center could have provided probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant to search the Grants’ home.

    Title II, Section 303 CCOJ provides:

    No Law Enforcement Officer shall conduct any search without a valid warrant except:

    The lawful arrest of the female witness may have provided an opportunity to establish probable cause for issuance of a search warrant, but that fact does not meet the criteria of Section 303 for a warrantless search.

(1) It must show probable cause to search the residence, and

(2) It must show the evidence of exigent circumstances to excuse the lack of a warrant.

    The record here shows that the officers had ample opportunity and probable cause to request a search warrant. The Grants’ house had been under surveillance; there were numerous reports from citizens regarding the suspected drug activity at the Grants’ home; a female leaving the home in her automobile was in possession of substance believed to be marijuana; the officer had reason to believe this suspected marijuana was obtained at Grants! home; an interview indicated that the marijuana joints had been purchased from Victor Grant at the Grant home.

    The test set forth in Winsor, supra, is clearly not met. Here, with all of the above information available to the officers during normal Court business hours, a search warrant could have been easily obtained.

    DATED this _____ day of August, 1990.

BY THE COURT OF APPEALS:

_________________________________
GERARD M. SCHUSTER, Chief Justice