Deputy Sheriff Dennis McCave received an afternoon phone call from a known informant about a suspicious black Cadillac parked at the Rimview Inn. McCave checked records on the Cadillac and learned it was registered to Jason Hibit-Smith, a minor. There was an outstanding arrest warrant on Hibit-Smith for sales of dangerous drugs. McCave obtained the arrest warrant and went to the Rimview Inn with Deputy Eugene Johnson.

The Rimview Inn motel clerk told McCave that the two men who got out of the black Cadillac were in Room 122, which was registered to Chris Williams. When the deputies knocked on the door of that room, a young man in stocking feet opened it. McCave asked the two men inside the room for their identification. A man sitting on a bed in the room said that he was Christopher Williams. The person who had opened the door replied that he was Jason Hibit-Smith, and McCave told him that he was under arrest. Deputy Johnson handcuffed Hibit-Smith, then sat him down in a chair in the room so that they could put his shoes on. The officers observed a suitcase and a pile of clothes on the floor and a stack of money on a second bed in the room.

McCave asked who owned the money on the bed. Hibit-Smith and Williams both replied that the money belonged to Williams. McCave asked how much money there was, and Williams replied, "two thousand dollars." While McCave counted the money, Hibit-Smith said there was less than two thousand dollars in the stack. The stack contained a little over $1,000. McCave said he intended to seize the money until its ownership was cleared up.

Deputy Johnson, meanwhile, was writing down information from the identification cards of Hibit-Smith and Williams. Hibit-Smith knew that he would be leaving with the deputies rather than in the Cadillac, so he asked Williams to call his uncle, and began to give a phone number. Williams asked for a pen.

Johnson was using one pen, and had others in his pocket, but he ignored Williams' question. McCave said he did not have a pen and commented that motels always have pens in the room. McCave looked at the open shelf on the telephone stand and did not see a pen there. He then opened a few desk drawers. In one of those drawers, he found three baggies that contained 20 to 25 folded pieces of paper, each holding small amounts of cocaine. McCave closed the drawer and told Williams that he was also under arrest.

Based upon the discovery of suspected cocaine in the drawer, the deputies obtained warrants to seize the evidence and to search the room and the Cadillac. Both Hibit-Smith and Williams were charged with possession of dangerous drugs with intent to sell. Should the court have suppressed the evidence because it was obtained as a result of an illegal search of the motel room? Compare State v. Williams, 887 P.2d 1171 (Mont. 1994).

Answer
(1)
If the room was not in the name of the defendant, then the police probably need a search warrant in addition to the arrest warrant in order to enter the room and arrest the defendant Hibit-Smith.  However, if they arrested Hibit-Smith outside the room, the officers would be permitted to enter the room with Hibit-Smith so that he could gather his shoes and identification under the reasoning in Williams. 

(2)
If the officers indeed did have justification to enter the room (aka a search warrant for Hibit-Smith and arrest warrant) then officer would not have to disregard evidence that he inadvertently discovered.  (State v. Williams has been overruled in so far as it required subsequent discovery of plain view evidence to be inadvertent.  Plain view is satisfied so long as the officer was in a place he could lawfully be and could lawfully enter the place where the evidence was located.  The officer must have really needed a pen, it could not have just been a pretext for opening the drawer.

(3)
The officers may or may not have probable cause to seize the cash.  It could not be seized incident to the arrest of Hibit-Smith because it was not on his person, the room was not in his name, and another person not under suspicion whose name the room was in claimed ownership of the money in the room. Additionally, to seize the money w/o a warrant under the plain view doctrine the incriminating nature of the items seized must be immediately apparent.