State of Maine v. Chappelle

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: December 27, 2011
• Docket: CUMcr-11-5349
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET CUMBERLAND, ss. No. CR-11-5349 1/ IDw- tum- ,;f !;;.o'J STATE OF MAINE

v.

JEREMY CHAPPELLE,

Defendant

Defendant Jeremy Chappelle is charged with felony drug trafficking in cocaine

base based on the inference that a person possessing more than 4 grams of cocaine base

is trafficking in that substance. See 17-A M.R.S. §§ 1103(1-A), 1103(1-B)(3). Because the

indictment alleges that Chappelle possessed more than 32 grams of cocaine base, the

charge against him would, if proven, constitute Class A aggravated trafficking in

cocaine base under 17-A M.R.S. § 1105-A(D).

A hearing on defendant's motion to suppress was held on December 1, 2011, and

the parties thereafter submitted memoranda of law.

The court finds as follows:

On August 11, 2011 at approximately 9 pm MDEA Agent Andrew Hagerty

received a telephone call from Jerry Goldsmith expressing concern for the welfare of his

daughter Faith Goldsmith. Hagerty had previously spoke with Goldsmith and

members of his family who had reported to him that Faith, who was over 18, had a

heroin problem, was in a downward spiral, and was associating with drug dealers. On

the evening of August 11 Jerry Goldsmith reported to Hagerty that Faith had called her

parents and had alarmed them by making statements to the effect that "everyone's lives

were in danger." Goldsmith further reported that his wife Tammy had gone to Faith's apartment

at 7 Juniper Ledge in Yarmouth to check on Faith and that Tammy was not answering

her cell phone.

Hagerty called the Yarmouth Police Department and asked the dispatcher to

send an officer to check on Faith's welfare and then he himself drove to the Juniper

Ledge Apartments. He arrived shortly after two Yarmouth officers, Kevin Pedersen and

Roger Moore, who were in uniform and had arrived almost simultaneously in separate

marked police cruisers around 9:30 pm. When Hagerty arrived, Officer Moore had

encountered Tammy Goldsmith and was talking to her outside the apartment complex.

Hagerty approached Tammy, who told him that she had been talking to Faith outside

the apartment building but that Faith had run away when she saw the Yarmouth police

cruisers. In an effort to find Faith, Officers Pedersen and Moore then canvassed the

outside of the apartment complex and Moore checked out a nearby convenience store.

At that point Hagerty and Faith's mother believed it was possible that Faith had

re-entered the apartment complex through one of the various entrances and had gone to

her apartment. Based on what he had been told by Faith's parents, Hagerty was

concerned that Faith was in some danger. At that point he decided that the officers

would check Faith's apartment, to which Faith's mother had a key. 1

Faith's mother unlocked the apartment, let Pedersen and Hagerty in, and waited

outside while Pedersen and Hagerty entered. The apartment, which was dark except for

a television that was switched on, was a small one bedroom with two levels. Initially

Hagerty and Pederson were using their flashlights to ascertain if Faith or anyone else

was inside.

1 The officers understood that Faith's mother had rented the apartment for her daughter.

2 On the lower level, they observed the defendant lying on an air mattress.

Hagerty and Pedersen identified themselves and when the defendant stood up, they

told him to sit back down and Pedersen patted him down for weapons. At this point

Hagerty was still looking to see if Faith was present as well but soon concluded she was

not there.

At that point Hagerty or Pedersen asked the male who he was and what he was

doing in the apartment. The defendant identified himself as Jeremy Chappelle and said

he was a friend of Faith's. Asked for identification, he produced a social security card, a

high school identification card, and some kind of North Carolina health care

identification card, all of which bore the name Jeremy Chappelle. By this time Officer

Moore had joined Hagerty and Pedersen in the apartment.

At no time during their encounter in the apartment with defendant was

defendant handcuffed or otherwise restrained. No weapons were displayed, and

nothing was said to defendant that would have suggested to him that once he had

identified himself and explained his presence in the apartment, he would not have been

free to leave.

The defendant told the officers that he had been in the apartment for several

hours, that he had only been in Maine for two days, and that he had been staying in a

hotel until Faith picked him up there earlier that day. Asked whether he had any

belongings, the defendant said he had left them at the hotel even though he also said he

had checked out.

By this time Officer Moore had also entered Faith's apartment. He noticed a

backpack with a black and white checkered pattern which drew his attention because it

was one of the few things in the apartment besides the television, the air mattress, and a

3 chair. He asked the defendant if the backpack belonged to him, and the defendant

responded in the negative?

At that point Hagerty, noting that the apartment tenant was not present, told the

defendant to leave the apartment, which he did. The officers continued looking around,

found several crack pipes, and collected them. Officer Moore began searching the

backpack and found some male clothing, a passport, and a pair of tennis shoes. Hefting

the tennis shoes and noticing that one was heavier than the other, Moore looked further

and found a plastic bag which contained what appeared to be a significant amount of

cocaine base (also known as crack cocaine). 3

The passport in the backpack included a photograph that resembled the man the

officers had talked to earlier who had identified himself as Jeremy Chappelle. However,

the passport was in a different name Gordan Charon) and had a different date of birth.

Thinking that the defendant had given them a false name and wanting to question him

about the crack cocaine found in the backpack, Officers Pedersen and Moore left the

apartment in search of the defendant. When they emerged from the apartment and got

into Pedersen's cruiser, they observed the defendant leaning into a vehicle some

distance away.

When the defendant saw the officers, he started running. The officers pursued

defendant in their car. After running 25 or 30 yards, the defendant stopped, was

ordered to the ground, was handcuffed, and was placed in Officer Pedersen's cruiser.

While the defendant was in the cruiser, Officer Pedersen asked him several questions

2 Based on the officers' testimony the court finds that it was clear to defendant which backpack Moore was asking about. Indeed, Hagerty remembered that Moore had displayed the backpack to defendant when he asked whether it belonged to defendant. 3 Hagerty estimated the amount to be at least 3-4 ounces - more than 20 times the amount necessary to raise possession of crack cocaine to a Class B offense under Maine law. See 17-A M.R.S. § 1107-A(2).

4 relating to his identity. 4 The defendant was thereafter transported to the Yarmouth

Police Department by Officer Pedersen. Although it appears that Officer Pedersen may

have mentioned that drugs had been discovered in the backpack, he did not question

defendant on that subject.

At the Yarmouth Police Department defendant, initially handcuffed, was placed

in an interview room. There is a video recording of all the proceedings in the interview

room, but no audio recording was made of the first two and a half minutes. During that

time the video reveals some initial interchange between Officer Pedersen and the

defendant, but it does not appear that any questioning took place and there was no

testimony at the suppression hearing that any questioning took place in the interview

room before the audio recording was turned on.

The audio recording was turned on at the two and a half minute mark. During

the next five minutes officer Pedersen made various inquiries of the defendant relating

to his education and his work in a barbershop in New York. Officer Pedersen also

counted the amount of money ($446) defendant was carrying. Except possibly by asking

defendant whether he was "in the game"- a question which elicited a negative response

- Officer Pedersen did not ask any questions relating to the drugs found in the

backpack. Officer Pedersen did make statements alluding to the drugs, telling

defendant that he knew defendant was not someone who was importing drugs from

Colombia but was just someone caught up in certain activities in Maine. However,

defendant did not make any incriminating statements during the five or six minutes in

which his conversation with Officer Pedersen was captured on the audio recording.

4 As it turned out, he was in fact Jeremy Chappelle, as stated in the various forms of identification he had first produced. In a subsequent interview, he stated that he was using a friend's backpack when he came to Maine and that the passport happened to be in the backpack.

5 At the end of five or six minutes Hagerty entered the room, Pedersen left, and

Hagerty gave defendant his Miranda warnings. Defendant stated that he understood

his rights and was willing to talk. Shortly thereafter, in response to Hagerty's questions,

defendant acknowledged that the backpack containing the crack cocaine was his and

made some additional incriminating statements.

During defendant's interview by Hagerty, the handcuffs were removed. At no

time did Pedersen or Hagerty engage in any behavior that could remotely be

characterized as coercive. Defendant was offered something to drink and an

opportunity to use the restroom. Both Hagerty and Pedersen were friendly throughout,

and Hagerty told defendant he would not seize the cash found on defendant but would

let him retain it. Moreover, although Hagerty told defendant near the end of the

interview that he would have an opportunity to cooperate by providing information to

federal officers, this was after defendant had acknowledged the backpack was his.

Hagerty indicated that cooperation could be helpful but made no specific promises and

emphasized that whether to cooperate was entirely up to the defendant.

In his motion to suppress defendant argues that the officers did not have

authority to detain and question him, that they did not have a right to search the

backpack, that he was questioned while in custody before he received Miranda

warnings, and that any statements he made were involuntary. On all the issues except

voluntariness the State has the burden of proof by a preponderance. On voluntariness,

as set forth below, the State has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Initial Police Contact

The court finds that the officers had a right to enter the apartment, having been

invited to do so by Faith's mother, who had a key, for a wellness check on Faith. Once

6 they encountered defendant, a person who was not the apartment tenant and who was

unknown to them, they were entitled to question him as to his identity. Under the

circumstances, the officers had a reasonable articulable basis to confront defendant and

briefly question him as to his identity and how he came to be in the apartment.

However, the officers were not required to give defendant a Miranda warning

before questioning him in Faith's apartment. A Miranda warning is required before

questioning a suspect who is in custody, and the test of whether a defendant is in

custody is whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have

believed that he was under arrest or was constrained to a degree associated with formal

arrest. State v. Michaud, 1998 ME 251

No Miranda warning is required for an investigatory detention which falls short

of an arrest. State v. Langlois, 2005 ME 3

facts of this case and considering the factors set forth in State v. Michaud, 1998 ME 251

Faith's apartment, the State has met its burden of showing that a reasonable person in

Chappelle's position would not have believed he was constrained to a degree associated

with formal arrest.

Search of Backpack

The court concludes that defendant does not have standing to challenge the

search of the backpack because he disclaimed ownership of the backpack. See, ~

United States v. De Los Santos Ferrer, 999 F.2d 7, 9 (1st Cir. 1993).

7 Arrest of Defendant Outside Apartment

The court concludes that the officers' detention of defendant in the parking lot

after they had discovered what they estimated to be at least 3-4 ounces of crack cocaine

was not a more investigatory detention but constituted the equivalent of an arrest.

However, the officers had probable cause to arrest and detain the defendant under the

circumstances given their discovery of the cocaine in the backpack along with a

passport picture that resembled defendant and other suspicious circumstances. 5

The court also finds that once the defendant stopped running in the parking lot

and was instructed to get on the ground and was handcuffed, a reasonable person in

defendant's position would reasonably believed that he was under arrest or was

constrained to a degree consistent with formal arrest. See State v. Michaud, 1998 ME 251

«JJ 4, 724 A.2d at 1226. This was confirmed when defendant, still handcuffed, was placed

in Officer Pedersen's cruiser and transported to the Yarmouth Police Department and

placed in an interview room. He was not given Miranda warnings until Agent Hagerty

entered the interview room at the Yarmouth Police Department. There is no evidence

that defendant made any volunteered statements while he was in Officer Pedersen's

cruiser or at the Yarmouth Police Department before Agent Hagerty arrived. As a

result, defendant's motion to suppress is granted as to any statements he made to

Officer Pedersen in the cruiser and at the Yarmouth Police Department before he was

given Miranda warnings.

5 Although the passport photo resembled defendant to some degree, it was far from a perfect likeness. However, passport photos are often poor likenesses, and the initials of the individual named in the passport were the same as those of the name given by the defendant. It was also at least curious that defendant, who was older than high school age, had provided a high school ID. Finally, there was an inconsistency between defendant's statement that he had checked out of his hotel and his statement that he had nevertheless left his baggage at the hotel. All of this information contributed to probable cause to conclude that the backpack belonged to the defendant and that he could therefore be arrested for possession of crack cocaine.

8 Post-Miranda Statements

Defendant contends that his post-Miranda statements should also be suppressed

on the theory that they were obtained only after defendant had made similar

admissions while in custody and before he had received Miranda warnings. See

Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004). There are two problems with this argument. The

first is that, on the suppression record before the court, there is no evidence that

defendant made anything similar to the crucial admissions in this case - that the

backpack was his, that he had obtained the crack cocaine in the backpack, and that he

had brought the crack cocaine to Maine to sell it -before Agent Hagerty gave him

Miranda warnings. Based on the evidence at the hearing and the recorded proceedings

at the Yarmouth Police Department, the court finds that officer Pedersen had generally

conveyed to defendant that the officers believed he was involved with drugs. Because

there is no evidence that defendant made any incriminating statements in response,

there is no basis to conclude that that his post-Miranda statements were made because

he had already made similar admissions.

Even assuming that defendant made some incriminating statements before he

received Miranda warnings, the second problem is that Seibert involved a situation

where the police had intentionally adopted a strategy of questioning arrestees before

giving them Miranda warnings in order to more easily extract the same admissions

after subsequent Miranda warnings were given. See 542 U.S. at 604. No such situation is

presented in this case. The absence of such a strategy may alone be sufficient to justify

the admission of the post-Miranda statements made to Agent Hagerty. See Siebert, 542

9 U.S. at 622 (Kennedy, J. concurring) 6; United States v. Jackson, 608 F.3d 100, 103-04 (1st

Cir. 2010).

To the extent that further analysis is necessary, the effect of a subsequent

Miranda warning when a suspect in custody has already made incriminating

statements would appear to turn on several factors. Among those are the following:

whether the initial failure to give Miranda warnings resulted from a good faith mistake,

whether the post-Miranda questioning was a continuation of the pre-Miranda

interview, and whether there was any coercion or other circumstances calculated to

undermine the suspect's free will. See Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 309, 318 (1985);

Missouri v. Siebert, 542 U.S. at 612 n.4 (plurality opinion); id. at 617-18 (Breyer, J.

concurring); United States v. Jackson, 608 F.3d at 103-04.

In this case, although the court has found that defendant was in custody for

purposes of Miranda once he was handcuffed in the parking lot, Officer Pedersen

testified that at the time he did not believe defendant had been placed under arrest but

instead was being detained in order to clear up his identity. Given the fluid situation

and the fact that Pedersen did not engage in any systematic questioning of defendant,

the court finds that Pedersen's belief to this effect, although incorrect, was in good faith.

Moreover, the post-Miranda questioning of the defendant was not merely a

continuation of earlier questioning in that (1) the venue had changed from Pedersen's

cruiser to the interview room, (2) Pedersen had been replaced by Hagerty, and (3)

Hagerty, in questioning the defendant after giving him Miranda warnings, made no

6 Justice Kennedy was the deciding vote in Siebert and he limited inadmissibility of post- Miranda statements to situations where a "two-step interrogation technique was used in a calculated way to undermine the Miranda warning." Id.

10 "you already told us" -type references to any prior statements defendant had made since

his arrest. 7

Finally, as set forth below, there was no coercion or other improper tactics that

undermined defendant's free will in this case, and the State has proven that all of his

statements were voluntary.

Voluntariness

Statements made by a defendant to law enforcement officers are only admissible

in evidence if those statements were voluntary, and the State bears the burden of proof

of establishing voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. Jig., State v. Coombs, 1998

ME 1 <][ 10, 704 A.2d 387, 390. A defendant's statements are voluntary if they result from

the free choice of a rational mind, are not the product of coercive police conduct, and if

under all the circumstances, the admission of those statements at trial would be

fundamentally fair. Id., 704 A.2d at 390-91.

In this case, as noted above, there was no coercion or other improper police

tactics. Both Officer Pedersen and Agent Hagerty conversed with defendant in a

friendly manner. Neither pressured him in any way. Defendant's statements to Agent

Hagerty were made after he had been given proper Miranda warnings and had

knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. Throughout his interaction with

Pedersen and Hagerty, defendant was never emotional or upset. Both he and the

officers remained calm throughout all their discussions. Defendant was understandably

7 Compare Missouri v. Siebert 542 U.S. at 605, where on several occasions during her post- Miranda questioning the suspect was referred back to (and reminded of) the incriminating statements she had previously made. In the case, as noted above, there is no evidence that defendant made any incriminating pre-Miranda statements with respect to the drugs found in the backpack. Even if he had, there is no indication in the record that Hagerty knew of any such statements or had ever consulted with Pedersen to learn of any statements defendant may have made to Pedersen.

11 subdued, but he acted in a rational manner throughout the interview and freely chose

to answer Hagerty's questions.

The court finds that defendant's statements to Agent Hagerty, as demonstrated

by the video and audio recording offered in evidence by the State, resulted from the free

choice of a rational mind, that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that

those statements were voluntary, and that the admission of those statements at trial

would be fundamentally fair.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to suppress is granted as to any

statements made by defendant from the time he was handcuffed in the parking lot until

he was given his Miranda warnings at the Yarmouth Police Department. In all other

respects, defendant's motion to suppress is denied.

Dated: December 27, 2011 -J-c_ Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court

12 STATE OF MAINE VS JEREMY S CHAPPELLE Docket No CUMCD-CR-2011-05349 990 ANDERSON AVE. APT #5J WEST 164TH STREET BRONX NY 10452-5642 DOCKET RECORD

DOB: 09/01/1988 Attorney: CHRISTOPHER LEDWICK State's Attorney: STEPHANIE ANDERSON THE LEDWICK LAW FIRM PO BOX 884 BRUNSWICK ME 04011 APPOINTED 08/12/2011

Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: FELONY (CLASS A,B,C) Filing Date: 08/15/2011

Charge{s)

1 AGGRAVATED TRAFFICKING OF SCHEDULED DRUGS 08/11/2011 YARMOUTH Seq 9050 17 -A 1105-A{1) {D) Class A HAGERTY I MDE

Docket Events:

08/15/2011 FILING DOCUMENT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 08/15/2011

08/15/2011 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - INITIAL APPEARANCE SCHEDULED FOR 08/15/2011 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 1

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 08/17/2011 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - INITIAL APPEARANCE HELD ON 08/15/2011 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 1 PAUL E EGGERT , JUDGE DA: KATHERINE TIERNEY TAPE 3068 08/17/2011 Charge(s): 1 PLEA - NO ANSWER ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 08/15/2011

08/17/2011 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 11/09/2011 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 7

08/17/2011 Charge(s): 1 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 12/12/2011 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 11

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 08/17/2011 BAIL BOND - $10,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 08/15/2011 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. l PAUL E EGGERT , JUDGE OR $50,000 S/S W/CONDS 08/17/2011 Charge (s): 1 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 08/15/2011

08/17/2011 Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL GRANTED ON 08/15/2011 PAUL E EGGERT , JUDGE Attorney: CHRISTOPHER LEDWICK CR 200 Page 1 of 3 Printed on: 12/30/2011 JEREMY S CHAPPELLE CUMCD-CR-2011-05349 DOCKET RECORD COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 08/17/2011 Party(s): JEREMY S CHAPPELLE ATTORNEY - APPOINTED ORDERED ON 08/12/2011

Attorney: CHRISTOPHER LEDWICK 11/04/2011 NOTE - OTHER CASE NOTE ENTERED ON 11/04/2011

CASE MOVED TO 1:00 AT ATTY'S REQUEST. FAMILY TRAVELLING OUT OF STATE CAN ONLY BE HERE THEN. 11/09/2011 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 11/09/2011 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE Attorney: CHRISTOPHER LEDWICK DA: LEA-ANNE SUTTON CONF HELD MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED, AND SCHEDULED TO 12-1-11 11/09/2011 Charge(s): 1 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL CONTINUED ON 11/09/2011 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE NO JURY SELECTION 12-12-11 11/09/2011 Charge(s): 1 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 01/09/2012 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 11

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 11/09/2011 Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 11/09/2011

11/09/2011 Charge(s): 1 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 12/01/2011 at 01:00p.m. in Room No. 8

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 11/14/2011 Charge(s): 1 SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - INDICTMENT FILED ON 11/10/2011 JAMES TURCOTTE , ASSISTANT CLERK 11/14/2011 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 12/01/2011 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 8

12/01/2011 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS HELD ON 12/01/2011 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE Attorney: CHRISTOPHER LEDWICK DA: LEA-ANNE SUTTON Defendant Present in Court

TAPE# 3373 INDEX 5200-5458,5915-7141. TAPE#3376 INDEX 130-1345,1502-2354. STATE'S WITNESS 1-KEVIN PEDERSEN YARMOUTH PD, 2- ROGER MOORE YARMOUTH PD, 3-ANDREW HAGERTY MDEA AGENT. STATE'S EXHIBITS: 1-POST-MIRANDA VIDEO INTERVIEW OF DEFENDANT AT YARMOUTH PD, 2-PASSPORT PHOTO. AFTER VIEWING VIDEO, ATTY LEDWICK TO FILE MEMO BY 12-9-11 AND ATTY SUTTON TO FILE MEMO BY 12-16-11. 12/01/2011 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 12/01/2011 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE Attorney: CHRISTOPHER LEDWICK CR 200 Page 2 of 3 Printed on: 12/30/2011