State of Maine v. Graves

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: July 17, 2017
• Docket: CUMcr-16-3494
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET CUMBERLAND, ss. No. CR-16-3494 S rATE OF MAINE Curnberlond, ss , Clerk's Office

STATE OF MAINE JUL f 7 20f7 V. RECEIVED ORDER

JASON GRAVES,

Defendant

Before the cou1t is a motion by defendant Jason Graves to suppress the results of a search

during the early morning hours of June 16, 2016 of a vehicle in which he was a passenger. A

hearing was held on June 27, 2017.

The court finds the following by a preponderance of the evidence:

Sometime around 11 :30pm on June 15, 2016 New I lampshire State Trooper Brian Gacek

stopped a red Chevrolet Cobalt sedan with Maine license plate 9672 UQ heading no1th on

Interstate 95 south of the Hampton NH toll station. His stop was based on some drifting between

lanes and the fact that he ran the registration, which indicated that the license plate belonged on a

dit1erent vehick The legality of that stop is not challenged in the motion to suppress. In the

course of that slop Trooper Gacek spoke to the driver of the vehicle, Robert Robinson, and the

front seat passenger, Jason Graves, the defendant in this case.

During the course of his initial interaction with Robinson and Graves, Trooper Gacek

observed a baggie with the corner cut off · frequently used to package drugs - and noticed that

both occupants were very nervous . 1 Robinson said they were coming from Connecticut bul

initially could not answer where in Connecticut, then mentioned I Iartford. By this time Gacek

1 Uacek also observed a large open bag of Skittles and multiple sodas, which in his eKpericnce can be an indication of drug use because addicts consume high sugar foods to ease the effects of coming down from being high. hac.l discovered that the registration was in order2 but he had formed a reasonable articulable

suspicion that there were illegal drugs in the vehicle. As a rcsull, he spoke to Robinson outside of

the car, and Robinson then stated that he had been to Connecticut to pick up a small pit bull

puppy from someone named "Frenchie," who knew Graves's girlfriend. At this point Robinson

also said he had been to several towns in Connecticut (but this time omitted Hartford) and told

Gacek that he had had a drug problem but had been clean for 5 years. Gacek then spoke

separately to Graves, who contradicted Robinson by stating that neither he nor his girlfriend

knew "Frenchie."

Gacek asked for consent to search the vehicle, which Robinson gave both orally and in

writing. Gacek did not find any drugs but found a Burger King bag on the floor of the passenger

compartment, where Graves had been seated, which contained baggies with used needles and

baggies containing a powdery substance that looked like drug residue. In the course of the search

both Graves and Robinson changed their stories - acknowledging that they had not picked up the

puppy but had instead gone to Connecticut to sell Robinson's ttuck. When Gacek said he did not

believe that story, Robinson said he had transferred his truck to pay off a drug debt.

When Gacek searched the vehicle, he did not find any drugs. No canine was available,

and Gacek decided not to make an arrest based on the residue that he had observed, so he

allowed Robinson and Graves to proceed. However, Gacek thereatler communicated by text with

Maine State Police Sgt. Kevin Rooney. In his texts Gacek identified the vehicle by model, color

and license plate and informed Rooney that he had seen needles and drug residue. He stated that

he was convinced he had missed drugs in the vehicle. In a subsequent phone call Gacek did not

1 The car had been registered the previous day by Graves's girlfriend using a pre-existing plate number. Thal change of registration had not yet been entered into the database available to Gacek when he ran the registration.

2 provide all the details of his interaction with Robinson and Graves, hut Gacek did state lhal their

stories had been inconsistent and they had been very nervous.

Sgt. Rooney went out to mile marker 36 on the Turnpike in Saco. At around I :36 am on

June 16, he observed the red Cobalt sedan travelling north and began following it. Although he

obst:rved some driving that he considered odd,3 he did not observe any traffic violations.

I [owever, he also ran the registration while following the vehicle and learned that the vehicle

seemed to have an expired registration and that the license plate appeared to belong on a

diftcrcnt vehicle. For that reason, Rooney activated his blue lights at around I :38 am.'1

Rooney did not know that the vehicle had been registered the previous day using a pre­

existing plate number because that information was not available when he ran the registration

and had not been communicated to him by Gacek. Graves does not challenge the legality of

Rooney's initial stop.

After the vehicle stopped, Rooney approached the vehicle and asked for driver's license

mid registration. Within several minutes he ascertained that the car was properly registered to a

third party. Howevt:r, based on the information he had received from Gacek and Rooney's own

observations that both occupants of the vehicle were extremely nervous, Rooney reasonably

suspected that there were drugs in the vehicle. 5 He asked the driver, Robinson, to step out of the

vehicle, conducted a pat-down search, and inquirt:d where the vehicle was coming from.

1 ·When he rirst obserwd the vehicle, it seemed to be following another car too closely even though there was very little Lrnffic. Once he followed it, it changed lanes and began to drive approximately IO miles below the speed limit. 1 'Tcclrnic;illy, the detention of the vehicle commenced approximately 30 seconds later, when the vehicle came to a halt at the side of the road. See Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 332 (2009).

l That the vehicle was registered to a third party was co11sistc11t with Rooney's suspicion, because he was aware that persons transporting narcotics ofteo used vehicle belonging to others in an attempt to avoid any vehicle forfeiture in the event narcotics were discovered in the vehicle.

3 Robinson stated that he had been to Connecticut and had sold a ttuck there to a Dominican or

Pue1to Rican named "Frenchie." Robinson added that his vehicle had been searched by a law

enforcement officer in New Hampshire and stated that Sgt. Rooney could also search the vehicle

if he wanted to.

Robinson voluntarily gave his consent to search - consistent with the previous consent to

search he had given in New Hampshire -- and he did so almost immediately . The cruiser camera

video of the stop (State's Ex. 3) has almost no audio because Rooney left his microphone in the

cruiser. It indicates that Robinson exited the vehicle at Sgt. Rooney's request less than two

minutes after Sgt. Rooney first approached the vehicle, that Rooney's initial discussion with

Robinson lasted approximately a minute, and that consent was given at that time - within three

or four minutes after the stop. There is a brief snippet of audio from the cruiser camera video

which confirms that, after initially conversing with Robinson, Rooney briefly returned to the

cruiser approximately three and a half minutes after the stop and advised the dispatcher by radio

that he was going to conduct a search of the vehicle. This timing is also consistent with Rooney's

report (Defense Ex. 2).

There was a delay in performing the search for two reasons. The first was that Rooney

was alone with the two occupants of the vehicle and for otlicer safety reasons did not want to

perform the search until another officer was present. The second and more important reason was

that Rooney decided to employ a dog in the search, and no dog was immediately available.

Rooney asked for a dog approximately three minutes after he had informed dispatch that he was

going to conduct a search. The closest available dog and handler was at the Po1tland Police

Department, and within five minutes, according to State's Ex. 3, there was a radio message that a

4 Portland canine was en route. Neither Graves nor Robinson objected that the search was taking

too long.

In the inlcrim Rooney continued lo question Robinson, who stated that he was an opiate

addict but had not used in a while. Approximately nine minutes after the stop Sgt. Rooney told

Robinson, who had been standing with Rooney between the red Cobalt and the State Police

cruiser, to stand in front of the red Cobalt. He then asked the passenger (defendant Graves) to

exit the vehicle and patted him down. Before he did so, he asked Graves if he had anything on

his person and Graves stated that he had a package of diabetic needles in his pocket. When asked

if he was diabetic, Graves said he was not.

Graves removed the package of needles and stated that Sgt. Rooney could search him. In

Graves's rockets Sgt. Rooney found some papers and unused baggies that appeared to be the

kind used for packaging drngs. He then patted down Graves and found nothing more but again

noted that Graves was extremely nervous, that his hands were shaking, and that he was tensing

up while Rooney performed the pat down . At that point, Sgt. Rooney was still alone with the two

occupants of the vehicle and with a legitimate concern for officer safety, Sgt. Rooney handcuffed

Graves. 6

Waiting for the second oflicer and the canine, Sgt. Rooney questioned Graves, whose

story was inconsistent with the statements previously given by Robinson.7 State's Ex. 2 shows

h See United States v. Fornia-Castillv, 408 F.3d 52, 64 (1st Cir. 2005) (use of handcuffs does not necessarily transform valid Teny stop into de facto arrest). Graves was handcuffed approximately 11 minutes alter Lhe stop and two minutes after Uraves exited the vehicle. 7 Specifically, Graves stated thal he and Robinson had been Lo Connecticut to sell a truck and to pick up the puppy in the vehicle, although Rohinson had previously stated that he had owned the dog for several months. While he was waiting for the canine, Sgt. Rooney went back lo speak with Robinson, who acknowledged that contrary to his earlier statements he had trnnsfcrred the truck to pay off a drug debt. Subsequently, Sgt. Rooney questioned Graves about the inconsistency between what Graves had said and what Robinson had said about the puppy, and (iraves acknowledged he had lied.

5 that for much of this time, Rooney and Graves appeared lo be conversing in an amiable fashion,

and at one point Rooney gave Graves a cigarette.

State's Ex. 3 indicates that the second officer, Sgt. Hare, arrived on the scene

approximately 25 minutes after the stop, at around 2:00am. State's Ex. 3 also shows that Portland

canine officer arrived approximately 10 minutes later - 33 minutes after the stop - and began a

search with the canine at approximately 2: I Sam - 37 minutes after the stop. 8 The P01tland police

dog showed significant interest in the front passenger compartment of the vehicle and on the

front right side of the vehicle, 9 and that caused Sgt. Rooney to reach into a recess behind the

glove compartment, where he found a package wrapped with packing tape. As he opened the

package, coffee grounds spilled out. In Sgt. Rooney's experience, drugs are often wrapped in

coffee grounds because it is believed that this will interfere with the ability of canines to detect

the odor of drugs. Inside the package, there were three white balls in plastic baggies, which

appeared to be cocaine, cocaine base, and heroin. These were subsequently field tested and came

hack positive.

The State has the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence the

validity of the search undertaken by Sgt. Rooney, including whether there was a voluntary

consent to search. The State has met that burden in this case.

The defense contention that the search of the vehicle in this case violated the Fouith

Amendment is based on the U.S. Supreme Comt's decision in Rodriguez v. United States, 135

8 ln the meantime the puppy in the red Cobalt had to be removed from that vehicle and the Portland canine officer had to be briefed on the situation. 9 The State offered evidence as to the reliability of the Portland dog, which does not appear to be contested by the defense.

6 S.Ct. 1609 (2015). Rodriguez ruled that a traflic stop becomes unlawful if it is prolonged beyond

the purpose of the original stop in order for the police to perform a dog sniff. 135 S.Ct. at 1615­

16. Tn this case, the defense argues, the justification for the stop was the apparent registration

problem and once that was quickly resolved, any further extension of the stop requires

suppression of the drugs that were eventually found.

However, as the Supreme Couit noted in Rodriguez, the issue in that case was whether

police routinely could "extend an otherwise-completed stop, absent reasonable suspicion, in

order to conduct a dog sniff." 135 S.Ct. at 1614 (emphasis added). Moreover, the Rodriguez

decision did not suppress the evidence found in the stop but remanded in order to determine

whether "reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justified detaining Rodriguez beyond

completion of the traffic infraction investigation." 135 S.Ct. at 1616-17.

In this case, Sgt. Rooney had a reasonable aiticulable suspicion - based on what he had

learned from Gacek bolstered by what he had observed in his initial interaction with Robinson

and Graves that Robinson and Graves were transpo1ting drugs. Reasonable articulable

suspicion may be based on the collective knowledge of law enforcement agents. State v. Carr,

1997 ME 221 ,i 7,704 A.2d 353. Rooney's suspicion was based on the presence of used needles

as reported by Gacek, the presence of what appeared tu be drug residue as reported by Gacek, the

existence of inconsistencies between their stories as repo1tcd by Gacek, and the extreme

nervousness observed by both Gacek and Rooney himself. This was at least sufficient to allow

some brief fu1ther inquiry. 0 Thereafter, almost immediately after asking Robinson to exit the vt:hicle, ' Sgt. Rooney

obtained Robinson's consent to search the vehicle. This occurred within three or four minutes

after the initial stop. Consent lo search obtained after the reason for the initial traffic stop has 10 This was permissible under Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110-11 (1977).

7 been resolved has been found valid if, at the time of the request for consent, there is reasonable

suspicion of drug activity. See United States v. Figueroa-Espana, 511 F.3d 696, 702-03 (7th Cir.

2007); United States v. Sanchez, 507 F.3d 877, 881-82 (5th Cir. 2007),judgment vacated and

remanded on other grounds, 553 U.S. l 029 (2008); United States 11. Contreras, 506 F.3d I 031,

1035-36 (10th Cir. 2007); United States v. !Wis, 497 F.3d 606, 613-14 (6th Cir. 2007); Uniled

States v. Gallardo, 495 F.3d 982, 987-88 (8th Cir. 2007); United States v. Simms, 385 F.3d 1347,

1353-55 (11th Cir. 2004); Lafave, Search & Seizure (5th ed. 2016) § 9.3(e) at n.306.

In this case, Sgt. Rooney did not have to request consent because Robinson (the driver of

the vehicle) volunteered consent to search the vehicle. This was offered so promptly as to dispel

any inference that consent was coerced because Robinson thought his vehicle would not

otherwise be allowed to leave.

Once consent was obtained, Sgt. Rooney was allowed to detain the vehicle long enough

to perform the search so long as he was acting diligently and reasonably. See United States v.

Sha,pe, 470 U.S. 675, 686-87 (1985); United Stales 11. Rosborough, 366 F.3d 1145, 1150-51

( I0th Cir. 2004) (general consent did not limit duration of search); United States v. Alcantar, 271

r. 3d 731, 738 (8th Cir. 2001) (consent search of an hour upheld where neither occupant of vehicle objected to the duration of the search). Courts have upheld detentions longer than the 37

minute detention in this case when officers have nol been dilatory but there has been a delay in

obtaining a drug dog. See, e.g., United States v. White, 42 F.3d 457, 460 (8th Cir. 1994) (hour

and 20 minute delay caused by remote location of dtug dog); United States v. Frost, 999 F.2d

737, 741-42 (3d Cir. 1993) (one hour wait). In this case Sgt. Rooney acted diligently in

requesting a dog shortly after consent to search was obtained, and a Portland canine was

8 dispatche

minutes to travel to the scene from Portland that the search was delayed.

The defense argued at the hearing that Sgt. Rooney did not act with sufficient diligence

because he could have requested a drug dog before the stop. However, the red Cobalt could have

exited 1-95 at any point before reaching Saco, and Robinson might not have consented to a

search. Sgt. Rooney could not have been expected to have a drug dog waiting at roadside in Saco

-· and therefore unavailable if needed in Portland - for a vehicle that might never have arrived

and a search that might never have happened.

The defense also argues that detaining the vehicle for 37 minutes amounted to a de facto

arrest. If consent had not been given, this argument would have some traction, given that Graves

was handcuffed approximately 10 or 11 minutes after the stop. However, the detention of Graves

and Robinson resulted from Robinson's consent to search, which was given within four minutes

of the initial stop. Accordingly, the court does not need to consider whether a de facto arrest

occurred in this case or whether Sgt. Rooney had probable cause - as opposed lo reasonable

articulable suspicion -- for a de facto an·est.

Finally, the defense does not appear to challenge that Sgt. Rooney was entitled to rely on

the consent of Robinson, who as the driver had an appropriate relationship to the vehicle. See

Stale v. Kremen, 2000 ME 117 ir I 0, 754 A.2d 964. The defense also does not appear to

challenge that the general consent, once given, extended to the entire car including the recesses

of the glove compa1tment, and to the wrapped package found there. See United States v. Ross,

456 U.S. 798, 821 n.28 ( 1982); United States v. Rosborough, 366 F.3d at 1150-51 (general grant

of permission to "go ahead" and search extended to the entire car).

Defendant's motion to suppress is denied.

9 Dated: July _L·./1·1·' 2017

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

10 STATE OF MAINE CRIMINAL DOCKET vs CUMBERLAND, ss. JASON GRAVES Docket No CUMCD-CR-2016-03494 121 SUNAPPLE LN BROWNVILLE ME 04414 DOCKET RECORD DOB: 12/27/1981 Attorney: ANDREW EDWARDS State's Attorney: STEPHANIE ANDERSON NORTHLANDLEGALSOLUTIONSLLCPA PO BOX 18190 PORTLAND ME 04112 APPOINTED 12/22/2016 Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: FELONY (CLASS A,B ,C) Filing Date: 06/17/2016 Charge(s) 1 AGGRAVATED TRAFFICKING OF SCHEDULED DRUGS 06/16/2016 SCARBOROUGH Seq 9050 17-A 1105-A(l)(D) Class A ROONEY I MSP 2 AGGRAVATED TRAFFICKING OF SCHEDULED DRUGS 06/16/2016 SCARBOROUGH Seq9064 17-A 1105-A(l)(H) ClassA Charged with INDICTMENT on Supplemental Filing. ROONEY MSP Docket Events: 06/17/2016 FILING DOCUMENT- CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 06/17/2016

06/17/2016 Charge(s): I HEARING - INITIAL APPEARANCE SCHEDULED FOR 06/17/2016 atOl:00 p.m. in Room No. 1

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 06/20/2016 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - INITIAL APPEARANCE HELD ON 06/17/2016 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE DA: MATTHEWTICE Defendant Present in Court FTRl 06/20/2016 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - DISPOSIDONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 08/16/2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Room No. 7

06/20/2016 Charge(s): 1 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 09/26/2016 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 11

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 06/20/2016 BAIL BOND - $15,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 06/17/2016 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE 06/20/2016 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL GRANTED ON 06/17/2016 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 06/20/2016 Party(s): JASON GRAVES ATTORNEY - APPOINTED ORDERED ON 06/17/2016

Attorney: MARK BULLOCK 06/20/2016 BAIL BOND - $15,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 06/20/2016

Bail Receipt Type: CR Bail Amt: $15,000 Receipt Type: CK Date Bailed: 06/17/2016 PrvdrName: JASON GRAVES CR-200 Page 1 of6 Printed on: 07/17/2017 JASON GRAVES CUMCD-CR-2016-03494 DOCKET RECORD RtmName: 409 BAIL DISBURSEMENT ON 08/02/2016 Check No. 31109 Check Amount: 5,000.00 Paid To: JASON GRAYES RETURNED TO DEFENDANT

06/27/2016 MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 06/27/2016

Attorney: MARK BULLOCK 06/27/2016 HEARING - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL SCHEDULED FOR 06/30/2016 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 1

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 06/27/2016 HEARING - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL NOTICE SENT ON 06/27/2016

07/01/2016 HEARING - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL HELD ON 06/30/2016 JED FRENCH , JUDGE Attorney: MARK BULLOCK DA: RAPHAELLE SILVER FTR 1 07/01/2016 MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL GRANTED ON 06/30/2016 JED FRENCH , JUDGE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL IN PART 07/01/2016 BAIL BOND - $10,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 06/30/2016 JED FRENCH , JUDGE W/ MPSC TO BE FILED WITHIN 7 DAYS. W/ CONDffiONS . 07/01/2016 BAIL BOND- CASH BAIL BOND COND RELEASE ISSUED ON 06/30/2016 JED FRENCH , JUDGE 07/01/2016 CASE STATUS - CASE FILE LOCATION ON 07/01/2016

AT SARAH'S DESK 07/01/2016 OTHER FILING - PRETRIAL SERVICES CONTRACT FILED ON 07/01/2016

07/01/2016 CASE STATUS - CASE FILE RETURNED ON 07/01/2016

07/05/2016 OTHER FILING- PRETRIAL SERVICES CONTRACT APPROVED ON 07/01/2016 ROLAND A COLE , JUSTICE 08/08/2016 Charge(s): 1,2 SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - INDICTMENT FILED ON 08/04/2016 JIM PAUL TURCOTIE , ASSISTANT CLERK 08/08/2016 Charge(s): 1,2 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 08/16/2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Room No. 7

08/08/2016 Charge(s): 1,2 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT NOTICE SENT ON 08/08/2016 JIM PAUL TURCOTIE, ASSISTANT CLERK 08/08/2016 OTHER FILING - NOTICE OF JOINDER FILED BY STATE ON 08/04/2016

DA: CARLOS DIAZ JOINED WITH ROBINSON 16-3493 08/12/2016 Charge(s): 1,2 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED BY STATE ON 08/12/2016 CR-200 Page 2 of 6 Printed on: 07/17/2017 JASON GRAYES CUMCD-CR-2016-03494 DOCKET RECORD

DA: CARLOS DIAZ MOTION TO CONTINUE DISPO ON 8-16. DEFENDANT DOES NOT OBJECT 08/12/2016 Charge(s): 1,2 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 08/12/2016 ROLAND A COLE , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 08/12/2016 Charge(s): 1,2 HEARING- ARRAIGNMENT CONTINUED ON 08/12/2016

08/12/2016 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - DISPOSffiONAL CONFERENCE CONTINUED ON 08/12/2016 ROLAND A COLE , JUSTICE 08/15/2016 Charge(s): 1,2 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 09/13/2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Room No. 7

08/15/2016 Charge(s): 1,2 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 09/13/2016 in Room No. 7

09/13/2016 Charge(s): 1,2 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 09/13/2016 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE Attorney: MARK BULLOCK DA: CARLOS DIAZ DEFENDANT INFORMED OF CHARGES. FTR 7 09/13/2016 Charge(s): 1,2 PLEA - NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 09/13/2016

09/13/2016 Charge(s): 1,2 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE CONTINUED ON 09/13/2016 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE Attorney: MARK BULLOCK DA: CARLOS DIAZ PART OF DISCOVERY PROVIDED TODAY TO ATTORNEY . CONTINUED BY AGREEMENT. 09/13/2016 Charge(s): 1 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL CONTINUED ON 09/13/2016 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE 09/13/2016 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 10/11/2016 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 7

10/11/2016 HEARING - DISPOSffiONAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 10/11/2016 LANCE WALKER , JUSTICE Attorney: MARK BULLOCK DA: CARLOS DIAZ CONF HELD, OFFER MADE. NEW MOTION & JURY SELECTION DATES GIVEN. MOTIONS 12-8, JURY SELECTION 1­ 9-17 10/11/2016 Charge(s): 1,2 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 01/09/2017 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 11

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 10/11/2016 Charge(s): 1,2 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL NOTICE SENT ON 10/11/2016

CR-200 Page 3 of6 Printed on: 07/17/2017 JASON GRAVES CUMCD-CR-2016-03494 DOCKET RECORD

10/20/2016 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 10/20/2016

Attorney: MARK BULLOCK 10/20/2016 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SCHEDULED FOR 12/08/2016 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 1

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 10/20/2016 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE NOTICE SENT ON 10/20/2016

11/28/2016 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 11/28/2016

TO CONTINUE MOTION HEARING 12-8-16. UNOPPOSED. 11/28/2016 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 11/28/2016 PAUL A FRITZSCHE , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 11/28/2016 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE CONTINUED ON 11/28/2016 PAUL A FRITZSCHE, JUSTICE 11/28/2016 Charge(s): 1,2 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL CONTINUED ON 11/28/2016

11/28/2016 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SCHEDULED FOR 01/12/2017 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 1

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 11/28/2016 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 03/13/2017 at08:30 a.m. in Room No. 11

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 12/21/2016 MOTION - MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CNSL FILED BY COUNSEL ON 12/20/2016

Attorney: MARK BULLOCK 12/22/2016 MOTION - MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CNSL GRANTED ON 12/21/2016 LANCE WALKER , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 12/22/2016 Party(s): JASON GRAYES ATTORNEY - WITHDRAWN ORDERED ON 12/21/2016

Attorney: MARK BULLOCK 12/22/2016 Party(s): JASON GRAVES ATTORNEY - APPOINTED ORDERED ON 12/22/2016

Attorney: ANDREW EDWARDS 01/04/2017 Charge(s): 1,2 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/03/2017

Attorney: ANDREW EDWARDS MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON 1-12-17. ADA DIAZ DOES NOT OBJECT 01/04/2017 Charge(s): 1,2 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 01/04/2017 PAUL A FRITZSCHE, JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/04/2017 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE CONTINUED ON 01/04/2017 PAUL A FRITZSCHE, JUSTICE 01/04/2017 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SCHEDULED FOR 02/23/2017 at 01 :00 p.m. in Room No. 1 CR-200 Page 4 of6 Printed on: 07/17/2017 JASON GRAVES CUMCD-CR-2016-03494 DOCKET RECORD

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/04/2017 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE NOTICE SENT ON 01/04/2017

02/15/2017 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 02/15/2017

Attorney: ANDREW EDWARDS AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE 02/24/2017 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE CONTINUED ON 02/23/2017 at 01 :00 p.m. in Room No. 1 JED FRENCH , JUDGE Attorney: ANDREW EDWARDS DA: ANGELA CANNON FfR 1 02/24/2017 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL CONTINUED ON 02/23/2017 atOl:00 p.m. in Room No. 1 JED FRENCH , JUDGE Attorney: ANDREW EDWARDS DA: ANGELA CANNON FfR 1 02/24/2017 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SCHEDULED FOR 05/11/2017 at 01 :00 p.m. in Room No. l

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 02/24/2017 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE NOTICE SENT ON 02/24/2017 JIM PAUL TURCO'ITE, ASSISTANT CLERK 02/24/2017 Charge(s): 1,2 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 05/22/2017 at 08 :30 a.m. in Room No. 11

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 03/30/2017 Charge(s): 1,2 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED BY STATE ON 03/29/2017

DA: CARLOS DIAZ MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON 5-11. ATTORNEY EDWARDS DOES OBJECT 04/05/2017 Charge(s): 1,2 HEARING - MOTION TO CONTINUE SCHEDULED FOR 04/06/2017 at 01 :00 p.m. in Room No. 1

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 04/05/2017 Charge(s): 1,2 HEARING - MOTION TO CONTINUE NOTICE SENT ON 04/05/2017

04/07/2017 Charge(s): 1,2 HEARING - MOTION TO CONTINUE HELD ON 04/06/2017 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE Attorney: ANDREW EDWARDS DA: CARLOS DIAZ FfRl 04/07/2017 Charge(s): 1,2 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 04/06/2017 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 04/07/2017 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE CONTINUED ON 04/06/2017 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE

CR-200 Page 5 of6 Printed on: 07/17/2017 JASON GRAVES CUMCD-CR-2016-03494 DOCKET RECORD 04/07/2017 Charge(s): 1,2 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL NOT HEW ON 04/06/2017

04/07/2017 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SCHEDULED FOR 06/27/2017 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 9

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 06/21/2017 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE NOTICE SENT ON 06/21/2017

06/28/2017 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE HELD ON 06/27/2017 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE Attorney: ANDREW EDWARDS DA: CARLOS DIAZ FTR9 06/28/2017 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 06/27/2017 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE 06/28/2017 CASE STATUS - CASE FILE LOCATION ON06/27/2017

IN JUSTICE WARREN'S CHAMBERS: DEF MOTION TO SUPRESS UNDER ADVISEMENT 07/17/2017 CASE STATUS - CASE FILE RETURNED ON07/17/2017

07/17/2017 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE DENIED ON07/17/2017 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 07/17/2017 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE DENIED ON 07/17/2017 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL

A TRUE COPY ATTEST: - - - - - - - - -- ­ Clerk

CR-200 Page 6 of6 Printed on: 07 /17/2017