State of Maine v. Cassidy

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 31, 2009
DocketCUMcr-08-890
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Cassidy (State of Maine v. Cassidy) 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.

Bluebook
State of Maine v. Cassidy, (Me. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

(" s iXi~:;F ,::,I~jE STATE OF MAINE CUi'lJ~: iii. ,~.·i~). ~:)S CUMBERLAND, ss. CLEf;;< .~ . : ~ I i' E

ZGO ~ ,. . ­ STATE OF MAINE

Plaintiff

v. ORDER

THOMAS A. CASSIDY

Defendant

Before this Court is Defendant Thomas Cassidy's motion to suppress.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Based on the evidence introduced at hearing on July 7,2009, this Court

makes the following findings of fact:

In the early hours of April 11, 2008, a series of fires were reported to the

Portland Police Department. The first of these car fires was reported just after

4:00 a.m., and based on subsequent reports of additional fires, it was apparent to

investigators that fires were being started in an eastward direction from the

location of the originally reported fire.

Shortly before 6:00 a.m. that morning, Sergeant John Nueslein of the

Portland Police Department was responding to a report of a car fire on the corner

of Pleasant Street and Maple Street. Sergeant Nueslein testified that prior to

being directed to the corner of Pleasant and Maple, he had stopped, and had

directed the officers under his command to stop, all individuals who were

physical!y present at or around the areas in which the car fires burned. These

individuals were approached so that police could ascertain the identities of all possible w' ~nesses and/ or suspects, as at this time, investigators did not have the

actu"-ll identity or a description of any possible suspects.

. While en route to the car fire and driving west on Pleasant Street, Sergeant

Nueslein noticed a white male, now known to be the Defendant, walking in an

easterly direction, about one hundred yards away from the fire burning at I

Pleasant and Maple. Sergeant Nueslein pulled his marked police cruiser to the

side of the street, exited the vehicle, approached the Defendant, and when he

was about fifteen to twenty feet from him, called out and asked the Defendant if

he could speak with him. The Defendant answered "yeah." As Sergeant Nueslein

spoke with the Defendant he noticed that the Defendant had alcohol on his

breath. Further, while the Defendant was speaking well enough to be

understood, Sergeant Nueslein testified that Defendant seemed to be looking

right through him.

As he was speaking with the Defendant, Sergeant Nueslein noticed that

the Defendant had what looked to be a knife handle protruding from his right

front pants pocket. When asked about it, the Defendant informed Sergeant

Nueslein that it was a "special forces" knife that his brother had given him. At

that point, Sergeant Nueslein took the knife by the handle, removed it from

Defendant's pocket and put it in his own. Sergeant Nueslein then asked the

Defendant if he had any other weapons on him, and the Defendant told him that

he did not. Subsequently, Sergeant Nueslein conducted a patdown search of the

Defendant in an effort to determine whether he had additional weapons in his

possessIon.

While conducting this patdown, Sergeant Nueslein felt a heavy object, five

to six inches long and made of solid steel, in the Defendant's sweatshirt pocket.

2 Sergeant Nueslein took the item from the Defendant's pocket and determined

that the item was, in fact, a pair of "brass knuckles." At this point, Sergeant

Nueslein placed the Defendant's hands behind his back and handcuffed him.

Sergeant Nueslein testified that he handcuffed the Defendant for his own safety,

as he was without a backup officer at this time.

After securing the Defendant in handcuffs, Sergeant Nueslein continued

his patdown search of the Defendant's person. As he frisked the Defendant's left

pants pockets, he felt another hard object and asked the Defendant what it was.

The Defendant responded by stating that it was an iPod. Unsure if the item was

an iPod or a weapon, Sergeant Nueslein removed the object and discovered that

it was, in fact, an iPod. Sergeant Nueslein then continued his pat down of

Defendant, and felt small objects in Defendant's shirt pocket. When asked, the

Defendant informed Sergeant Nueslein that the items he felt were lighters, and

after getting permission from the Defendant, Sergeant Nueslein removed the

lighters from the shirt pocket. Continuing his pat down of the Defendant,

Sergeant Nueslein felt what he believed to be a large quantity of change in

Defendant's back pocket. When asked, Defendant confirmed that he had a large

amount of change.

At this point, Sergeant Nueslein asked the Defendant for his name and

date of birth, and the Defendant provided this information. Soon thereafter,

Officer Ryan Gagnon, arrived on the scene, followed by Detective Paul Murphy.

Sergeant Nueslein then inquired with one of the officers working the fire scenes

if one or more of the victims were missing any of the items found on Defendant's

person. Sergeant Nueslein was informed that one victim, whose car was parked

at Park Street, was missing an iPod matching the description of the one found on

3 Defendant's person. Thereafter, upon the direction of Detective Murphy, Officer

Gagnon transferred the Defendant to the police station for questioning.

DISCUSSION

Both the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article

I, Section 5 of the Maine Constitution "protect us from unreasonable intrusions of

police officers and other government agents." State v. Burgess, 2001 ME 117, 9I 7,

776 A.2d 1223, 1227 (quoting State v. Caron, 534 A.2d 978, 979 (Me. 1987)).1 The

test espoused by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio, 392

u.s. 1 (1968), has long been adopted and applied in Maine. See, e.g., State v. Langlois, 2005 ME 3, 9I 7, 863 A.2d 913, 916; State v. Moulton, 1997 ME 228, 9I 10,

704 A.2d 361,364; State v. Griffin, 459 A.2d 1086, 1089 (Me. 1983).

Under this test, "an investigatory stop is justified if at the time of the stop

the officer has an articulable suspicion that criminal conduct has taken place, is

occurring, or imminently will occur, and the officer's assessment of the existence

of specific and arti cui able facts sufficient to warrant the stop is objectively

reasonable in the totality of the circumstances." Burgess, 2001 ME 117, 9I 7, 776

A.2d at 1227 (quoting State v. Tarvers, 1998 ME 64, 9I 3, 709 A.2d 726, 727 (internal

quotation marks omitted)); see Terry, 392 U.s. at 21-22. "Reasonable articulable

suspicion 'is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of

the evidence,' but 'the suspicion needs to be based on more than speculation or

an unsubstantiated hunch.'" Burgess, 2001 ME 117, 9I 8, 776 A.2d at 1227 (quoting

I Further, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state courts under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684,6 L. Ed. 2d 1081 (1961).

4 State v. Eklund, 2000 ME 175, 9I 6, 760 A.2d 622, 624 (internal quotation marks

omitted)).

The legitimacy of an investigatory search or seizure requires a two-step

analysis. State v. Hill, 606 A.2d 793, 795 (Me.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mapp v. Ohio
367 U.S. 643 (Supreme Court, 1961)
Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1968)
Florida v. Royer
460 U.S. 491 (Supreme Court, 1983)
State v. Griffin
459 A.2d 1086 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1983)
State v. Eklund
2000 ME 175 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2000)
State v. Moulton
1997 ME 228 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1997)
State v. LaPlante
534 A.2d 959 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1987)
State v. Caron
534 A.2d 978 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1987)
State v. Storey
1998 ME 161 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1998)
State v. Burgess
2001 ME 117 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2001)
State v. Hasenbank
425 A.2d 1330 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1981)
State v. Tarvers
1998 ME 64 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1998)
State v. Rabon
2007 ME 113 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2007)
State v. Hill
606 A.2d 793 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1992)
State v. Langlois
2005 ME 3 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Maine v. Cassidy, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-cassidy-mesuperct-2009.