State of Maine v. Bilynsky
This text of State of Maine v. Bilynsky (State of Maine v. Bilynsky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE S~UPERIORCOURT . .
SAGADAHOC, ss CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-04-178
STATE OF M E
v. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS CHRISTOPHER BILYNSKY,
Defendant
The defendant moves to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the initial
warrantless search and the execution of the search warrant. The defendant argues that
observations made during the warrantless search were illegally obtained because there
was no justification for the warrantless entry. The defendant argues further that if
illegally obtained information is excised from the affidavit, there is insufficient
information in the affidavit to support the issuance of the search warrant.
The court previously ruled that there was sufficient probable cause to support
the District Court's Approval of the search warrant. See 9112105 Transcript at 10-12. The issue remaining is whether the warrantless entry into the defendant's home was
justified based on exigent circumstances. For the following reasons, the motion to
suppress is DENIED.
Facts
Daniel Rousseau, a Special Agent with the United States Drug Enforcement
Agency, and Barry Kelly, a Kennebec County Sheriff's Department Deputy and a Drug
Task Force Officer assigned to the District Attorney's Office, have extensive training and
experience in investigation of clandestine laboratories, including methamphetamine
laboratories. Both have together investigated more than 100 clandestine laboratories. On October 22, 2004, S.A, Rousseau received information from S.A. Kelly that
various police officers believed they had found a person who was associated with a
clandestine laboratory and that they had discovered suspicious chemicals. S.A.
Rousseau responded to the residence of Maurice Labonte, who was cooperating with
the officers. S.A. Rousseau observed materials that he associated with clandestine
laboratories, including containers, myriodic acid, pill dough used in the manufacture of
methamphetamine, and pasty-type material in a pie plate. In previous investigations,
when such items were found and tested, the results showed that the substances were
part or' an intermediate process in the mantifacture of methamphetamine or were, in
fact, a controlled substance.
The officers interviewed Mr. Labonte, who stated that the defendant was
manufacturing methamphetamine and had been involved in the manufacture for a long
time. The defendant had cooked methamphetamine at Mr. Labonte's house three
months previously. Mr. Labonte described the manufacturing process as involving
significant fumes and sometimes smoke. When Mr. Labonte used the substance
produced, he became sick and h g h . Based on h s observations and an interview with
Mr. Labonte, S.A. Rousseau concluded that Mr. Labonte was involved in the
manufacture of amphetamine or methamphetamine.
The officers next went to Mr. Harmon's residence, where they located red
phosphorous, w h c h is used to manufacture methamphetamine and w h c h omits a
lethal gas. Mr. Harmon provided information similar to that provided by Mr. Labonte.
Mr. Harmon stated he had been present when the defendant manufactured
methamphetamine and described the fumes present during the process. Mr. Harmon
described h s reaction when he used the substance produced and that reaction was
consistent with a reaction to use of amphetamine or methamphetamine. Mr. Harmon are trained to conduct a preliminary security sweep of the area where the
manufacturing process is underway, remove any occupants, ventilate and secure the
area, and leave as quickly as possible. The officers planned to obtain a search warrant
after the safety issue was addressed.
S.A. Kelly found a chicken barn that had been converted to a storage place,
adjacent to an inhabited residence. As soon as he exited h s vehcle, S.A. Kelly smelled a
strong odor of fumes consistent with an odor he recognized as chemicals used in
clandestine methamphetamine manufacturing. He noticed an electrical cord leadng
from a shed to the chcken barn. A il air conditiciner attached to a trailer near the shed was turned on high, in spite of 40-degree weather. Keeping air cool is part of the
manufacturing process for methamphetamine. As he approached the chcken barn, he
noticed a glare in the shed. He looked through a door and saw a container being
heated, consistent with a manufacturing process. He also saw a person inside the barn
who was not wearing a gas mask. Based on his training and experience, S.A. Kelly
knew that if he encountered people not wearing gas masks, he had a limited time to
enter the barn and make the area safe. S.A. Kelly was concerned for the safety of h s
officers and potential occupants of the two residences near the barn. S.A. Kelly was
advised that people were running around inside the barn.
The officers entered the barn by breaking down a piece of plywood and entered
the shed. The officers did not knock before entering. They conducted a quick search of
the area to determine whether anythng was cooking. Various items were found that
are consistent with the manufacture of methamphetamine. The propane in the shed
was turned off. Conclusions
The affidavit contains sufficient facts to establish probable cause that a crime had
been committed o n the premises to be searched and to jusbfy issuance of the warrant.
See State202005 PE 100, ¶ 18, 881 A.2d 651; State v. Michael M., 2001 IvE 92, 96,772 A.2d 1179, 1181-82. - evidence of a crime might b e The officers had probable cause to believe that
found during the search. See State v. Leonard, 2002 ME 125, ¶ 13, 802 A.2d 991, 994.
Further, exigent circumstances existed. The warrantless entry into the barn and shed
tvas justified to determine whether conditions i l l the building threatened the safety of
people or properv. See id.The officers' primary reason for entering the builhngs was
to protect public safety and not to gather additional evidence to obtain a search
warrant. The officers tvere reasonable in not knockng and announcing their entry. See
State v. Hider, 1998 ME 203, ¶'$ 9, 13, 715 A.2d 942, 946-47; see also State v. Reynoso-
Hernandez, 2003 IME 19, y15,816 A.2d 826,831. . .
The entry is .'!
The Defendant's Mobon to s u p p r e k is DENIED.
<
Date: November 21, 2005 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT VS SAGADAHOC, ss . CHRISTOPHER N BILYNSKY Docket No BATSC-CR-2004-00178 PO BOX 471 BOOTHBAY ME 04537 DOCKET RECORD
DOB: 03/26/1970 State's Attorney: PATRICIA MADOR
Pro Se.
Filing Document: PETITION Major Case Type: BAIL REVIEW Filing Date: 11/15/2004
Charge (s)
1 UNLAWFUL TRAFFICKING IN SCHEDULED DRUGS 10/07/2004 TOPSHAM (OTHER ENHANCEMENT) Seq 8541 17-A 1103 (1-A)(A) Class A KELLY / -MDE 2 UNLAWFUL TRAFFICKING IN SCHEDULED DRUGS 07/01/2004 TOPSHAM (OTHER ENHANCEMENT) Seq 8541 17-A 1103 (1-A)(A) Class A Charged with INDICTMENT on Supplem KELLY / MDE 3 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY 05/01/2004 TOPSHAM Seq 8370 17-A 151 (1) (B) Class B Charged with INDICTMENT on Supplem KELLY / MDE 4 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF SCHEDULED DRUG 10/01/2004 TOPSHAM Seq 8568 17-A 1107-A(1) (B) (1) Class C Charged with INDICTMENT on Supplern KELLY / MDE
Docket Events:
11/22/2004 FILING DOCUMENT - PETITION FILED ON 11/15/2004
11/22/2004 MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 11/15/2004
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Maine v. Bilynsky, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-bilynsky-mesuperct-2005.