State of Maine v. Gurney
This text of State of Maine v. Gurney (State of Maine v. Gurney) 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.
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET CUMBERLAND, ss. DOCKET NO: CR-2009-4017 . - - '-' I \ l ..' .~. i-i I './. '
STATE OF MAINE
v. ORDER CHAD GURNEY
Defendant Chad Gurney moves to suppress all evidence obtained as a
result of two search warrants issued on May 29, 2009, and June 9,2009. Mr.
Gurney argues that the affidavits supporting the warrants were insufficient to
establish probable cause and the searches thus violated his Fourth Amendment
right.
BACKGROUND Mr. Gurney stands accused of arson and the murder of Zoe Sarnacki. On
May 29, 2009, Detective Eli Chase of the Portland Police Department filed an
affidavit and warrant to search certain portable electronic devices Mr. Gurney
had voluntarily surrendered on arrest. These items consisted of an Apple brand
laptop computer, Apple brand iPod portable music player, a Blackberry brand
cellular telephone/PDA device, and electronic storage media and data contained
within each of the three devices. Detective Chase specializes in computer crimes
and has substantial experience with and training in electronics, computers,
software, and forensic data recovery.
In his affidavit, Detective Chase reported learning that the Portland Fire
Department had responded to reports of smoke coming from the third floor of
1 463 Cumberland Avenue on May 25, 2009 at approximately 6:35 in the everling.
The Department found a working fire coming from apartment #8 and forced its
way inside. As they worked to extinguish the fire, members of the Fire
Department found a charred female body lying on a bed in the apartment. The
body was later identified as Ms. Sarnacki. The scene was secured, and the
Portland Police Detectives arrived to begin their investigation.
Apartment #8 had been rented to Mr. Gurney and his was the sole name
on the lease. Inside the apartment, detectives found that Ms. Sarnacki's head had
been severed and that various items including a crucifix had been placed on or
around her body prior to burning. The detectives also learned that Mr. Gurney's
best friend was Corey Bryant. Detectives Scott Dunham and Lisa Sweatt located
Mr. Bryant and spoke with him at his residence on May 26, 2009, at
approximately 1:00 am. Mr. Bryant told the detectives that Mr. Gurney had been
planning a trip to Thailand, and that Mr. Bryant had called him on May 25, 2009,
but that his calls had not been returned. In the past, Mr. Gurney had told Mr.
Bryant that he believed himself to be a prophet.
One hour later, at approximately 2:08 am on May 26, 2009, Portland Police
Department Officer Jason King was on routine patrol when he stopped a vehicle
for failing to stop at a red light. Mr. Bryant was driving the vehicle, and he was
actively talking to Mr. Gurney on a cellular telephone. Mr. Bryant informed
Officer King that Mr. Gurney was on the phone, and then handed the phone
over. Officer King was then able to speak with Mr. Gurney and learned that Mr.
Gurney was staying in Room #107 at the Crest Motel in Old Orchard Beach. Mr.
Gurney indicated that he wished to turn himself in. The Old Orchard Police
2 Department and Detectives Rybeck and Vogel from the Portland Police were
notified.
At approximately 4:00 am on May 26, 2009, Ivlr. Gurney left his hotel room
and was taken into custody. He was transported to the Portland Police
Department Headquarters and interviewed by Detective Dunham. After
receiving and waiving his Miranda warnings, Mr. Gurney told Detective
Dunham that he had been in a struggle with Ms. Sarnacki, his girlfriend, during
which he strangled her until he knew she was dead. He then decapitated her
with a knife and walked to a nearby gas station to purchase gasoline. He
returned to his apartment, poured the gasoline on Ms. Sarnacki's body, and
ignited it. Mr. Gurney then collected a bag he had packed for his trip to Thailand,
his laptop, and a shotgun and drove to the Motel in Old Orchard Beach. He
claimed to have no particular reason for severing Ms. Sarnacki's head or placing
the crucifix and other objects on and around her body.
Detective Chase arrived at the Portland Police Department's property and
evidence section at approximately 11:30 am on May 26,2009. There he examined
the electronic items that had been retrieved from Mr. Gurney's hotel room after
he was taken into custody. The Apple brand laptop's LED light was on and
pulsing, indicating that the computer was in "sleep mode." Detective Chase did
not open the computer's lid or remove its battery because he understood that
doing so would risk losing a decryption key for data stored on the computer's
hard drive.
On May 29, 2009, Detective Chase requested and received a warrant to
search the named electronic devices for "[c]omputer records or data, whether in
printed or electronic form, that are evidence of indifference to the value of
3 Facebook account. During the conversation Mr. Bryant indicated that he had
deleted Mr. Gurney as a friend. Later interviews with Mr. Gurney's friends and
former girlfriends led Detective Murphy to believe that relevant information
might be contained in Mr. Gurney's Facebook account.
DISCUSSION
The Fourth Amendment requires a showing of probable cause prior to the
issuance of a search warrant. "When determining whether probable cause exists,
the judicial officer must rely on 'factual and practical considerations of everyday
life on which reasonable and prudent [persons], not legal technicians, act.'" Stnte
v. Snmsoll, 2007 ME 33, 9f 1 t 916 A.2d 977, 980 (quoting Illinois v. Gntes, 462 U.s.
213, 231 (1983)) (alteration in original). "Probable cause exists when, based on the
totality of the circumstances, 'there is a fair probability that contraband or
evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.'" Id. 9f 12, 916 A.2d at 981
(quoting Stntc v. Wrigltt, 2006 ME 13, \Vhen asked to review the issuance of a warrant, the court's role is to ensure that the judicial officer who issued the warrant "had a 'substantial basis for ... [concluding]' that probable cause existed." Gntes, 462 U.S. at 238-39 (quoting [olles v. United Stntes, 362 U.s. 257, 271 (1960), overrllled all otlter grounds hy Uuited Stntes v. Snlvllcci, 448 U.s. 83 (1980)) (alterations in original). The revievving court directly reads "the affidavit in support of the warrant in a positive light and consider[s] all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from information in the affidavit." Snmsoll, 2007 ME 33, Mr. Gurney objects to both warrants on the ground that their supporting affidavits fail to establish any evidentiary nexus between the items to be searched and the alleged criminal activity. He also objects that Detective Murphy's 5 affidavit supporting the June 9, 2009 warrant does not establish that the Facebook account of "Chad Thomas" in fact belonged to Chad Thomas Gurney. Detective Chase's affidavit provides a substantial basis for the issuing justice to find a fair probability that evidence relating to Mr. Gurney's alleged criminal activity would be found on his laptop computer, Blackberry cellular telephone/PDA device, and their attendant electronic storage devices. Mr.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Maine v. Gurney, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-gurney-mesuperct-2010.