STATE COURT TIGHTENS UP ON WARRANTS

HELENA (AP) – Police who use questionable sources to obtain search warrants
risk having convictions thrown out if they don’t do investigative work of
their own to prove an informant’s credibility, the Montana Supreme Court has
ruled.

The 4-3 ruling puts law officers on notice that relying on confidential or
anonymous sources may not be enough for a judge to issue a search warrant.
Independent police work to corroborate such tips also can be necessary, the
majority held.

The court insisted it was not breaking new ground or putting a more onerous
responsibility on law enforcement. Rather, Justice James Nelson said, the
decision merely uses the same reasoning that the U.S. Supreme Court adopted
in 1983.

But the dissenting justices said Monday’s decision goes too far in mandating
police investigation as the cure for shaky tips from informants.

The ruling came in a Gallatin County case involving the search of a mobile
home at Big Sky. John Reesman, one of those living in the home, pleaded
guilty to drug possession after officers found 123 doses of LSD in his
bedroom.

Reesman argued officers did not have enough legal cause to obtain the search
warrant and that the drug evidence should be tossed out. The district judge
rejected the request and Reesman appealed to the Supreme Court.

The search warrant was based on a confidential informant, who said she had
been shown a marijuana-growing operation in the home by another occupant,
and an ”anonymous citizen,” who said the plants had been growing for a year.

All seven members of the Supreme Court agreed with Reesman that the basis
for the search warrant was flawed.

Law officers provided nothing to prove the credibility of the confidential
informant by showing she had provided reliable and accurate information in
the past, the court said.

The anonymous citizen’s tip was of little help, because officers supplied no
background on how the person came to know about the drug-growing operation,
the court added.

Beyond that, however, the justices differed over how to resolve the problem.

Nelson, writing for the majority, said an anonymous source always requires
corroboration, and some police work was needed in this case to provide that.

“As an underlying general rule, further independent corroboration or
investigation by law enforcement personnel is the panacea for most warrant
applications where information is supplied by an informant,” he said.

Justice Jim Regnier disagreed. He said the conclusion that police
investigation is the only way to remedy questionable tips used to get
warrants is too restrictive.

Police should be required to provide additional details about the tipsters
and how they obtained the information being passed on to law enforcement,
Regnier said. That should be enough for a judge to determine the credibility
of the tips, he said.

Those signing Nelson’s majority opinion were Justices Bill Leaphart, William
E. Hunt Sr. and Terry Trieweiler. In addition to Regnier, the dissenters
were Justice Karla Gray and Chief Justice Jean Turnage.