State v. J. Kasparek, 2016 MT 163

On Aug. 27, 2013, Glacier County deputies investigated a burglary at Judy Como’s home; cash, jewelry, a computer, cigarettes, and drug test results were reported missing.
Neighbor Doreen Momberg observed a white four-door car with Spencer Atchley, Noelle Martin, and Jason Kasparek stop at Como’s house around 10:30 p.m.; Kasparek entered the house twice while Como was absent.
Deputy Justin Stokes drafted and obtained a search warrant for Kasparek’s residence based on those observations; police found several stolen items at Kasparek’s home and arrested him.
While detained, Kasparek initially declined to speak to Captain Tom Seifert; about five hours later Kasparek began speaking, Seifert then read Miranda warnings and obtained additional statements (not electronically recorded).
Kasparek moved to suppress the physical evidence seized under the warrant and his custodial statements; the district court denied both motions, he pled guilty reserving appeal, and the Montana Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of search warrant (probable cause)	Warrant application contained sufficient facts (entries, timing, stolen items) to show a fair probability evidence would be at Kasparek’s residence.	Application did not show Kasparek actually burglarized the house; neighbor did not see items removed; omissions rendered warrant deficient/misleading.	Affirmed — probable cause existed under the totality of the circumstances based on facts within the four corners of the affidavit; defendant failed to show misleading information.
Suppression of custodial statements (Miranda/recording)	Statements admissible: Seifert’s invitations were not coercive interrogation; rights read once defendant began speaking; statements were voluntary and reliable (exception to electronic-recording requirement).	Initial invocation of silence required police to cease interrogation; later reinitiation and unrecorded interrogation violated Miranda and statutory recording requirement.	Affirmed — second invitation after several hours did not violate the right to remain silent; statements were promptly Mirandized and found voluntary; recording exception applied and lack of recording did not affect substantial rights.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (requires warnings before custodial interrogation)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (limits Miranda interrogation to police words/actions likely to elicit incriminating responses)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1978) (procedures for challenging truthfulness of affidavit supporting warrant)
State v. Barnaby, 142 P.3d 809 (Mont. 2006) (probable cause requires fair probability evidence will be found at place to be searched)
State v. Worrall, 976 P.2d 968 (Mont. 1999) (discussed retroactive consideration of omitted affidavit information; overruled here on that point)