State of Maine v. Collins

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedJune 12, 2009
DocketKENcr-09-006
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Collins (State of Maine v. Collins) 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. Collins, (Me. Super. Ct. 2009).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC ss CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-09-006 ,It \ ,i ( 'I , V \ - 1/'-" ' h vL-~I ',IJ -':.c' /1" '/I" , , V / 0 ,­ .

STATE OF MAINE

v. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS KEVIN COLLINS,

Defendant

The defendant argues that the warrantless search of his vehicle and all evidence

obtained should be suppressed. The findings of fact made at the conclusion of the

hearing are incorporated into this order by reference. For the following reasons, the

motion to suppress is denied.

Conclusions of Law

The defendant argues that there was no basis for the warrantless search of the

defendant's vehicle because the officers had no significant concerns for their safety, the

defendant was not able to re-enter his vehicle, and the officers had no reasonable belief

that evidence connected to the crime for which the defendant was under arrest would

be found in the vehicle. The officers agreed that they had no significant officer safety

concerns and the defendant was not able to re-enter his vehicle. The officers did,

however, have a reasonable belief that evidence connected to the marijuana cultivation

charge could be found in the vehicle.

Search Incident to Arrest

In Arizona v. Cant, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (2009), the defendant was arrested for driving

with a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in the back of a patrol car. The

officers then searched the defendant's car and found a gun and cocaine. Id. at 1714.

The Court concluded that the search was unreasonable because there was no possibility that the defendant could have accessed his vehicle and there was no likelihood that the

officers would discover offense-related evidence during the search. Id. at 1719. The

Court held that officers are authorized "to search a vehicle incident to a recent

occupant's arrest only when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of

the passenger compartment at the time of the search." Id. The Court also concluded,

however, that a search incident to a lawful arrest would be justified when it is

"reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the

vehicle." Id. (quoting Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 632 (2004) (Scalia, J.,

concurring in judgment)).

In this case, the defendant was told he would be charged with marijuana

cultivation. Prior to the search of the vehicle operated by the defendant, Agent Struck

had received information that drug activity was suspected in the downstairs apartment,

#1, at number 943 on Route 202 in Monmouth, where the defendant resided, and Agent

Struck had obtained a search warrant for that address. Because the agents had begun

their execution of the search warrant prior to the time of the search of the vehicle,

Agents Struck, Richards, and Dubois knew that the defendant's apartment was being

used entirely for a marijuana grow operation and had found, among other things,

marijuana plants, a hydroponic grow operation, documents with the defendant's name

on them, and loose marijuana. Agent Richards knew that the defendant had been

involved in a drug-related case in Somerset County in the 1990s and was familiar with

the defendant's methods of operation. The officers were reasonable in their belief that

evidence connected to the marijuana grow operation might be found in the vehicle. See

United States v. Smith, 510 F.3d 641,649 (6th Cir. 2007).

2 Search Warrant and Probable Cause to Search

Probable cause to believe a vehicle contains evidence of criminal activity

authorizes a search of any area of the vehicle in which the evidence might be found.

United States v. Ross, 456 U.s. 798, 820-21 (1982); see also Smith, 510 F.3d at 647. In this

case, the District Court Judge's determination of probable cause concerned vehicles

"present at the above described premises at the time of the execution of the search

warrant." (State's Ex. 1.) Although the defendant's vehicle slowed into the breakdown

lane at the edge of the parking lot as if to enter the parking lot, the vehicle did not enter

the parking lot of the apartment building. The vehicle was not subject to the probable

cause determination in the search warrant. See United States v. Gereb, 547 F. Supp. 2d

658, 665-66 (W.D. Tex. 2008). The search of the vehicle also could not properly be

conducted pursuant to the search warrant. See Smith, 510 F.3d at 647.

The entry is

The Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.

Date: June 12, 2009 Nancy Mills Justice, Superior Court

3 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT vs KENNEBEC, ss. KEVIN COLLINS Docket No AUGSC-CR-2009-00006 7 HILLCREST STREET AUGUSTA ME 04330 DOCKET RECORD

DOB: 02/10/1960 Attorney: LISA WHITTIER State's Attorney: EVERT FOWLE LAW OFFICE OF LISA W D WHITTIER, ESQ 21 WESTERN AVENUE AUGUSTA ME 04330 APPOINTED 05/18/2009

Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: FELONY (CLASS A,B,C) Filing Date: 01/07/2009

Charge(s)

1 AGGRAVATED TRAFFICKING OF SCHEDULED DRUGS 01/05/2009 MONMOUTH Seq 8558 17-A 1105-A(1) (B) (4) Class B

2 AGGRAVATED CULTIVATING OF MARIJUANA 01/05/2009 MONMOUTH Seq 9097 17-A 1105-D(1) (A) (3) Class C

3 CRIMINAL FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY 01/05/2009 MONMOUTH Seq 7049 15 5826 Class U Charged with INDICTMENT on Supplem

Docket Events:

01/07/2009 FILING DOCUMENT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 01/07/2009

01/13/2009 Charge(s): 1,2 HEARING - INITIAL APPEARANCE HELD ON 01/07/2009

Defendant Present in Court 01/13/2009 Charge(s): 1,2 HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 03/10/2009 @ 8:30

01/13/2009 Charge(s): 1,2 PLEA - NO ANSWER ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/07/2009

01/13/2009 BAIL BOND - $50,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 01/07/2009

OR 300,000 SURETY 01/13/2009 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/07/2009

01/13/2009 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL GRANTED ON 01/12/2009 JOSEPH M JABAR , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/13/2009 Party(s): KEVIN COLLINS ATTORNEY - APPOINTED ORDERED ON 01/12/2009

Page 1 of 6 Printed on: 06/15/2009 KEVIN COLLINS AUGSC-CR-2009-00006 DOCKET RECORD Attorney: JAMES FLICK 01/13/2009 Charge(s): 1/2 HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ON 01/13/2009

01/28/2009 MOTION - MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CNSL FILED BY COUNSEL ON 01/28/2009

01/30/2009 MOTION - MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/30/2009

01/30/2009 HEARING - MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY SCHEDULED FOR 03/05/2009 @ 8:30

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/30/2009 HEARING - MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY NOTICE SENT ON 01/30/2009

02/04/2009 Party (s) : KEVIN COLLINS ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/04/2009

Attorney: LISA WHITTIER 02/05/2009 Charge(s): 1/2,3 SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - INDICTMENT FILED ON 02/05/2009

02/05/2009 Charge(s): 1/2,3 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 02/17/2008 @ 8:30 JOHN NIVISON / JUSTICE 02/05/2009 Charge(s): 1,2,3 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT NOTICE SENT ON 02/05/2009

02/05/2009 Charge(s): 1/2 HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE NOT HELD ON 02/05/2009

02/06/2009 MOTION - MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CNSL GRANTED ON 02/05/2009 NANCY MILLS , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 02/13/2009 MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 02/12/2009

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

Related

Thornton v. United States
541 U.S. 615 (Supreme Court, 2004)
Arizona v. Gant
556 U.S. 332 (Supreme Court, 2009)
United States v. Smith
510 F.3d 641 (Sixth Circuit, 2007)
United States v. Gereb
547 F. Supp. 2d 658 (W.D. Texas, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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