State of Maine v. Fowler

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: February 3, 2011
• Docket: SOMcr-10-226
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE F~EC;;D .\ F:':,L!:~C, SUPERIOR COURT SOMERSET, ss. ';Ve.rlc!'j 1\.'~ 1?·:i.-':·1~·(::~ Docket No.: 1O-CR-226 Ir J ~ I't \, "J'o.-fv- "\ ') - J..

Cit:;;',: d eCl; ie, Sornf.:;i"S:?L Cni ~'lt>

State of Maine,

ORDER v. (Request for Franks Hearing)

James Fowler,

Defendant

This matter was heard on January 18,2011, on Defendant's request for a Franks

hearing' to challenge the accuracy of the information contained in the affidavit used to

secure a warrant to search Defendant's residence on March 19,2010. In the search, law

enforcement officers found a number of marijuana plants, after which search the State

charged Defendant with marijuana cultivation in violation of 17-A M.R.S.

§1117(l)(B)(3).

Discussion Defendant IS entitled to a Franks hearing only if "he makes a 'substantial

preliminary showing' that: (l) the affidavit to obtain a warrant included intentional and

knowing misstatements or misstatements made in reckless disregard for the truth, and (2)

'" the misstatements were necessary for a finding of probable cause." State v. Dickinson,

2005 ME 100, ~ 8,881 A.2d 651,655 (citations omitted). If Defendant satisfies these

requirements, a hearing is nevertheless not required "if, when material that is the subject

of the alleged falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient

I "A Franks hearing is an evidentiary hearing pursuant to which a defendant is permitted to challenge the

truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit to support a search warrant." State v. Dickinson, 2005 ME I 00, ~ 8,881 A.2d 651,655 (citing, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56,98 S .Ct. 2674). content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause ... " Franks v.

Delaware, 438 U.S. 154,171-72,98 S.O. 2674.

In support of his request for a hearing, Defendant cites three aspects of the

affidavit Mathew Cunningham (Cunningham) of the Somerset County Sheriff's Office:

(1) that Cunningham's assertion that it was unknown whether the Defendant had a

medical marijuana prescription was misleading or false; (2) that Cunningham's assertion

that certain photographs depicted more than 100 marijuana plants in Defendant's home

was misleading or false; and (3) that the affidavit lacked sufficient information from

which one could assess the reliability of information supplied by an informant.

Defendant contends that given one of Cunningham's principal sources of

information for the affidavit, Cunningham had to know that his representation to the

Court that it was unknown whether Defendant had a medical marijuana prescription was

false. In particular, Defendant argues that because Cunningham obtained a substantial

amount of his information from Defendant's Facebook page, including the photographs

that Cunningham observed and referenced in his affidavit, Cunningham must have seen a

picture of Defendant's medical marijuana prescription which, according to Defendant, is

located on the same Facebook page in close proximity to the subject photographs.

Preliminarily, Defendant has not established a sufficient record upon which the

Court can conclude that Cunningham likely observed the medical marijuana prescription

on Defendant's Facebook page. In essence, Defendant contends that Cunningham's

observation of the prescription was inevitable because he located and examined the

photographs of the marijuana plants. The fact that Cunningham could have potentially

accessed a photograph of the prescription does not automatically lead to the conclusion that he in fact viewed the photograph. That is, the mere fact that the prescription was

available for Cunningham to observe does not constitute a "substantial preliminary

showing" that Cunningham was aware of the prescription, and intentionally or recklessly

withheld that information from or misrepresented that information to the Court.

Even if the Court were convinced that Defendant had satisfied his burden on this

issue, the Court would nevertheless deny Defendant's request for a hearing based on the

issue. As Cunningham asserted in his affidavit, in the event Defendant had a medical

marijuana prescription, Defendant would still be in violation of law given the number of

plants that Cunningham observed. In other words, the affidavit established probable

cause for the search regardless of the representation as to whether Defendant had a

prescription for medical marijuana.

Defendant's argument regarding Cunningham's representations about the

photographs of the plants also fails. Defendant contends that Cunningham inaccurately

described the number of plants because he failed to include in the affidavit his

observation, contained in his report but not his affidavit, that the total number of plants

could be less than asserted because the different perspectives of the various photographs

might distort the number of actual plants in the Defendant's residence. Significantly,

however, Defendant failed to present any reliable evidence to suggest that the number of

plants was other than the number asserted by Cunningham, or that the number of plants

present was within the permissible limit for a person with a valid medical marijuana

prescription. Accordingly, Defendant has not made a "substantial preliminary showing"

that Cunningham misrepresented the substance of the photographs. In addition, the record contains no persuasive evidence to suggest the absence of probable cause if

Cunningham had included in his affidavit all of the information contained in his report.

Finally, Defendant has failed to make a "substantial preliminary showing" that

Cunningham misrepresented the informant's qualifications, or withheld any information

that would generate questions about the informant's reliability. Defendant's argument

regarding the information supplied about the informant cannot, therefore, be the basis of

a Franks hearing.

Conclusion Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court denies Defendant's request for a

Franks hearing.

The Clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference.

Dated: l/1/1 1 ..v-­