State of Maine v. Conway

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT PISCATAQUIS, SS. DOCKET NO VI-100

STATE OF MAINE

v. Decision

RAYMOND CONWAY

The Court conducted this possession of alcohol by a minor trial on July 23, 2016.

The State was represented by Katherine Campbell while the defendant represented

himself.

In this Decision, the Court addresses a search issue that arose during the trial.

Officer Stephen Garib responded to an anonymous complaint of underage drinking at a

particular residence in Dover-Foxcroft at approximately 11:30 p.m. on April 9, 2016. He

parked his cruiser on the road to the side of the house and walked to the back of the

house so that he could look through a window to view the occupants. He testified that

he chose that back window because the others were covered. He indicated that he saw

the defendant inside the house, taking a drink from a Bud Light can. Officer Garib then

went to the front of the house and knocked on the door, eventually gaining access and

encountering the defendant and another young male. Defendant told the officer that he

did not live there and that the house belonged to the other male. The officer observed

two beer cans inside the home.

The observation of the defendant's drinking beer is the only direct evidence

placing the defendant in possession of alcohol, and without this any circumstantial

inference is insufficient. Because there is no allegation that the officer made this ,I I • 'I

observation while in an area that the public would commonly use to gain access to the

house, there is a great risk that his observation would be suppressed as the fruit of an

illegal search. The Court has reviewed State v. Filion, 2009 ME 23, however, which sets

forth the relevant factors to be evaluated in deciding whether a house guest has

standing to suppress the search of a third party's home. These factors, which the

defendant must establish, include whether the defendant had possession of the

property, his prior use of the property, whether his presence on the property was

legitimate, his ability to control the property and exclude others, his access to the

property in the owner's absence, and his subjective expectation of privacy. Id. at

Because the defendant has not established any of these factors, he does not have

standing to raise the search issue. The Court adjudicates, by a preponderance of the

evidence and based primarily on the officer's observations through the window, that

the defendant committed the offense of possession of alcohol by a minor.

Dated: August 22, 2016 ii/L WILLIAM ANDERSON JUSTICE, SUPERIOR COURT