State v. Kant
2016 MT 42
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Bradley and Crystal Kant previously held caregiver licenses to grow marijuana; after licenses lapsed they continued to grow and distribute marijuana.
- A 2012 arrest of a neighbor and a 2015 confidential source (CS) tip implicated Crystal Kant in growing and delivering marijuana to Vicki Jefferies on Wednesdays; the CS supplied phone, address, and vehicle information and admitted personal drug use/trading with Jefferies.
- Detective Tim Barnes applied for and obtained a warrant to search the Kants’ residence; he cited the CS tip, a 2012 tip linking Kant to growing, and a surveillance observation of a vehicle registered to Kant arriving at Jefferies’ home on a Wednesday evening.
- Execution of the warrant yielded 67 live marijuana plants, 12 pounds of processed product, and grow/distribution paraphernalia; criminal charges followed against Bradley Kant.
- Kant moved to suppress and dismiss, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause (insufficient independent corroboration, stale information, and improper magistrate inferences); the District Court denied suppression; Kant pled guilty while reserving the right to appeal that denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Kant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the warrant supported by probable cause? | Warrant application, viewed as a whole, gave a fair probability of criminal activity at the Kants’ home. | Application lacked sufficient independent corroboration of the CS tip to establish probable cause. | Yes — probable cause existed; suppression denied. |
| 2. Was independent corroboration of the CS required and present? | The CS was non-anonymous and Barnes independently corroborated key details (phone, addresses, vehicle) through surveillance/records. | Corroboration was only of innocent/public facts and did not link criminal activity to the Kants or the residence. | Court found Barnes’ corroboration sufficient under Reesman. |
| 3. Were challenged facts (2012 tip, summer odor) stale and improperly relied on? | Some background facts were included but the magistrate could draw reasonable inferences from the application as a whole. | The 2012 tip and odor report were stale and should not support probable cause. | Majority did not rely on those stale items and found probable cause on remaining information. |
| 4. Did the magistrate impermissibly infer facts not in the four corners of the affidavit? | Practical, common‑sense inferences are permitted; the magistrate’s finding is entitled to great deference. | Magistrate made unsupported inferences (e.g., CS had first‑hand knowledge; surveillant identity; link between deliveries and Kant-grown marijuana). | Court drew reasonable inferences in favor of the magistrate and upheld the warrant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (established the totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for probable cause)
- State v. Reesman, 301 Mont. 408 (adopted a three‑prong framework for informant corroboration under Gates)
- State v. Barnaby, 333 Mont. 220 (emphasized evaluating the warrant application as a whole and allowed pragmatic inferences)
- State v. Rinehart, 262 Mont. 204 (deference to magistrate’s probable cause determination)
- State v. Griggs, 306 Mont. 366 (corroboration must show familiarity with alleged criminal activity; corroboration of innocent facts is weak)
- State v. Tackitt, 315 Mont. 59 (corroboration must be more than innocent, public information)