State of Maine v. Fontaine

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedJanuary 22, 2013
DocketCUMcr-12-4193
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Fontaine (State of Maine v. Fontaine) 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. Fontaine, (Me. Super. Ct. 2013).

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET CUMBERLAND, ss. No. CR-12-4193 , T:r)VJ ·-· c UJV\ - i') ') /~-;\ C/ .~'

STATE OF MAINE

v. ORDER

JOHN FONTAINE,

Defendant

Before the court is defendant's motion to suppress certain statements. A hearing

on that motion was held on December 20, 2012.

The facts are straightforward. On June 23, 2012 Officer Longanecker of the South

Portland Police Department was called to the Food Court at the Maine Mall based on a

report of an assault. Longanecker was informed by the dispatcher that a white male in a

black shirt was leaving the scene.

When Longanecker responded to the area in his cruiser, he had a brief

conversation with a loss prevention officer who directed Longanecker's attention to a

white vehicle traveling on Philbrook Avenue and informed Longanecker that the male

who had left the scene was a passenger in that vehicle.

Longanecker stopped the vehicle, using his blue lights, on John Roberts Road. At

that point Fontaine got out of the passenger side of the vehicle and immediately

approached Longanecker, moving quickly toward him. As he came toward

Longanecker, Fontaine made a statement about "hitting Josh" and requested that

Longanecker not arrest him, adding that he was on federal probation. 1

1 There is no dispute that those statements were spontaneous utterances made when defendant was not in custody and the defense is not seeking to suppress those statements. Concerned about the manner in which Fontaine had rushed towards him,

Longanecker told Fontaine to stop where he was and placed Fontaine in handcuffs for

officer safety. After he had handcuffed Fontaine, Longanecker patted him down for

weapons and found none. At that point, with Fontaine still in handcuffs, Longanecker

asked Fontaine what had happened. Longanecker did not give Fontaine any Miranda

warning at that time.

In response to Longanecker's question, Fontaine offered some information about

a prior encounter with Joshua Jensen (the alleged victim of the assault) and stated that

Jensen had followed him and had threatened to "fuck him [Fontaine] up."

Fontaine is seeking to suppress the statements he made after he was handcuffed

in response to Longanecker's question as to what had happened and to a further

question by Longanecker was to whether Jensen had elaborated on what he meant

when he said he was going to "fuck him up."

The motion to suppress turns on whether Fontaine was in custody for purposes

of Miranda when he responded to Longanecker's two questions after Longanecker had

handcuffed him and whether, even if Fontaine was in custody, the "public safety"

exception to Miranda is applicable here. See New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 656-59

(1984).

Whether a person is in custody for Miranda purposes requires evaluation of a

number of factors to determine 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 <[ 4, 724 A.2d 1222, 1226. In this case,

the court has considered the factors set forth in Michaud and concludes that a

reasonable person in Fontaine's position, having been handcuffed and frisked under the

circumstances of this case, would have believed that he was under arrest or was

2 constrained to a degree associated with formal arrest. See United States v. Newton, 369

F.3d 659, 676-77 (2d Cir. 2004)_2

At the same time the court finds that Officer Longanecker's actions in

handcuffing Fontaine were motivated and justified by officer safety. However, the

Miranda exception under New York v. Quarles applies only to questions designed to

elicit information necessary for the officer's safety and the safety of the public. See 467

U.S. at 658-59 (distinguishing between "questions necessary to secure [police officers']

safety or the safety of the public" and questions designed to elicit testimonial evidence);

United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d at 677-79.

In this case Officer Longanecker acted reasonably in handcuffing Fontaine when

Fontaine exited the vehicle in which he was riding and swiftly approached

Longanecker. However, once Longanecker had handcuffed Fontaine, Longanecker's

questions focused on what had happened at the mall and not on any immediate issue

relating to Longanecker's safety or the safety of the public. Accordingly, Fontaine's

motion to suppress is granted as to the statements Fontaine made in response to the two

questions Longanecker posed after Fontaine had been handcuffed handcuffed. See State

v. Brann, 1999 ME 113 <[15, 736 A.2d 251.

Defendant's motion to suppress statements is granted to the extent set forth

above.

Dated: January g. 2013

~----- Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court

2 A person may be detained without being in custody for purposes of Miranda. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 436, 440 (1984); United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d at 669. Where Fontaine had been handcuffed and frisked, more than a simple investigatory detention occurred here.

3 STATE OF MAINE VS JOHN H FONTAINE Docket No CUMCD-CR-2012-04193 1 NORTH PARK ST BIDDEFORD ME 04005 DOCKET RECORD

DOB: 07/05/1976 Attorney: GEORGE HESS State's Attorney: STEPHANIE ANDERSON GEORGE A HESS ESQ 11 LISBON ST., LEWISTON PO BOX 423 AUBURN ME 04212-0423 APPOINTED 10/12/2012

Charge(s}

1 ASSAULT 06/23/2012 SOUTH PORTLAND Seq 8382 17 -A 207 (1} (A} Class D LONGANECKER I SPO

Docket Events:

06/28/2012 FILING DOCUMENT - CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 06/26/2012

06/28/2012 Charge(s): 1 HEARING- ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 08/22/2012 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. 1

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 06/28/2012 BAIL BOND - $100.00 CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 06/26/2012

Bail Receipt Type: CR Bail Amt: $100 Receipt Type: CK Date Bailed: 06/23/2012 Prvdr Name: JOHN FONTAINE Rtrn Name: 682 08/09/2012 Charge (s): 1 SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - COMPLAINT FILED ON 08/06/2012 JAMES TURCOTTE , ASSISTANT CLERK 09/13/2012 BAIL BOND - CASH BAIL BOND DEFAULTED ON 08/22/2012

Date Bailed: 06/23/2012 682 09/13/2012 BAIL BOND - CASH BAIL BOND NOTICE SENT ON 09/13/2012

Date Bailed: 06/23/2012 682 09/13/2012 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT FTA ON 08/22/2012 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE 09/13/2012 BAIL BOND- $1,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 08/22/2012 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE NO THIRD PARTY BAIL W/ COND 09/13/2012 WARRANT- $1,000.00 FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR ORDERED ON 08/22/2012 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE CR 200 Page 1 of 4 Printed on: 01/22/2013 JOHN H FONTAINE CUMCD-CR-2012-04193 DOCKET RECORD NO THIRD PARTY CASH BAIL TO WEDS 8:30 ARRAGNMENT. NOT TO BE AT THE MAINE MALL. NO CONTACT; JOSHUA JENSON. 09/13/2012 WARRANT- $1,000.00 FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR ISSUED ON 09/13/2012

NO THIRD PARTY CASH BAIL TO WEDS 8:30 ARRAGNMENT. NOT TO BE AT THE MAINE MALL. NO CONTACT; JOSHUA JENSON. 09/26/2012 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 10/12/2012 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 1

09/26/2012 WRIT - HABEAS CORPUS TO PROSECUTE ISSUED ON 09/26/2012 JAMES TURCOTTE , ASSISTANT CLERK CERTIFIED COPY TO SHERIFF DEPT. 09/28/2012 WARRANT - FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR RECALLED ON 09/28/2012

09/28/2012 WARRANT - FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR CANCEL ACKNOWLEDGED ON 09/28/2012 at 08:34 a.m.

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

Related

New York v. Quarles
467 U.S. 649 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Berkemer v. McCarty
468 U.S. 420 (Supreme Court, 1984)
United States v. Sewn Newton
369 F.3d 659 (Second Circuit, 2004)
State v. Michaud
1998 ME 251 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1998)
State v. Brann
1999 ME 113 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Maine v. Fontaine, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-fontaine-mesuperct-2013.