State of Maine v. Lovell

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedApril 12, 2021
DocketCUMcr-20-191
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Lovell (State of Maine v. Lovell) 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. Lovell, (Me. Super. Ct. 2021).

Opinion

STA TE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET CUMBERLAND, ss No . CR-20-191

STATE OF MAINE

V. ORDER

JOSHUA LOVELL,

Defendant

Before the court is defendant's motion to suppress. A hearing was held on February 1, 2021

and the parties thereafter filed memoranda of law.

At the hearing defense counsel clarified that the basis of the motion was that MDEA

officers did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to stop a vehicle in which Joshua Lovell was

riding, which led to the discovery of the illegal drugs on which the charges against Lovell are

based.

The court finds as follows:

Prior to January 11, 2020 Michael Lee, a detective employed by Amtrak with experience

in investigating cases involving the transport of narcotics by train, had been informed by an Amtrak

conductor named Gato that a passenger named Joshua Lovell had made a same-day round trip

from Portland to Haverhill, MA on December 23, 2019 in company with another male and that

after disembarking in Haverhill they had returned to Portland on the next northbound train

approximately 2 hours later. The conductor reported that it appeared as if the males might be high

on drugs.

Detective Lee consulted an Amtrak database and learned that Lovell had previously made

two trips to Haverhill - on December 7 and December 16 - and in each case had stayed only a short time in Haverhill, disembarking from a southbound train and then returning on the next

northbound train. Detective Lee knew that Haverhill was a location where supplies of narcotics

were frequently obtained for distribution to other areas.

Conductor Gato subsequently supplemented the information he had provided to Detective

Lee by informing him that he had noted where Lovell and the other passenger had had been seated

on the December 23 trip and that he had seen what appeared to be a crack pipe on one of those

seats after Lovell had left the train.

There are no assigned seats on the trains between Portland and Lawrence but there is a

manifest listing the passengers to which conductors have access. Detective Lee did not himself see

the crack pipe and there is no evidence that the conductor had any law enforcement training or

other knowledge that would have allowed him to recognize a crack pipe.

According to training that Detective Lee had received from the DEA, passengers who took

quick round trips to places known to be drug distribution centers could be using the train system

to transport drugs. Detective Lee accordingly notified MDEA Special Agent Matt Morrison that

Joshua Lovell had made several quick round trips to Haverhill, 1 that Lovell and his companion

had appeared high on drugs on December 23, and that the conductor has seen what the conductor

had thought was a crack pipe where Lovell and his companion had been sitting. Morrison said he

was not familiar with Lovell but expressed interest if Lovell were to make any quick round trips

in the future

On January 11, 2020 Conductor Gato sent Detective Lee one or more texts stating that

Lovell was again taking a round trip from Portland, again to Haverhill, where Lovell was scheduled

1 Although Detective Lee testified he was aware of three quick round trips by Lovell in December, Morrison recalled that he was informed of two such trips .

2 to spend approximately 3 8 minutes between the time he disembarked from a southbound train and

the time he would reboard a northbound train.

Detective Lee then notified Agent Morrison that Lovell was again making a quick round

trip to Haverhill, apparently in the company of a Silas Lovell. Morrison knew that MDEA had

previously received information from Detective Lee which had led to arrests and seizures of drugs.

He also knew Haverhill to be a location from which illegal drugs were transported to Maine. 2

Morrison learned when the train transporting Lovell was scheduled to arrive and obtained

a driver's license photo of Lovell, from which he also learned that Lovell was not from Portland

but from somewhere north of Portland. He then waited in the station and saw someone whose

appearance matched Lovell's driver's license photo, trailed by a small child who Morrison thought

was trying to keep up, walk through the station with the disembarking passengers without pausing.

Morrison then followed that man outside the station, where the man got into a Honda Civic which

was right outside in the waiting lane. As the car drove away, Morrison made the decision to stop

the vehicle and communicated that to other officers who stopped the vehicle on the ramp leading

to I-295 South. 3

2 Agent Morrison also made internal inquiries as to whether Maine law enforcement officers had infonnation linking Joshua Lovell to drug activity and he was told that there had been some kind of contact possibly related to drugs (referred to at one point as "drug calls for service") involving Lovell in Harrison or Bridgton . Since no other details were given and the cou11 does not understand the meaning and cannot weigh the significance of a "drug call for service," it does not give any weight to that information in dete1mining whether reasonable a11iculable suspicion existed.

3 Since the sole focus of the suppression hearing was on whether Agent Morrison had a reasonable a11iculable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which Lovell was a passenger, no evidence was offered as to what had transpired after the stop.

3 Discussion

The State has the burden of demonstrating by a preponderance that Agent Morrison had a

reasonable articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which Lovell was riding as it drove away

from the train station on January 11, 2020.

In order to justify a brief investigatory stop of a motor vehicle, a law enforcement officer

must have an objectively reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal conduct has occurred or is

occurring. State v. LaForge, 2012 ME 65 ,r 8, 43 A.3d 961. A reasonable articulable suspicion is

"considerably less" than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence and need not

rise to the level of probable cause. "The suspicion need only be more than speculation or an

unsubstantiated hunch." Id ,r 10, quoting State v. Porter, 2008 ME 175 ,r 9,960 A.2d 321.

When Morrison made the decision to stop the vehicle in which Lovell was a passenger, he

had received information from Amtrak Detective Lee that Lovell had made two prior quick round

trips from Portland to Haverhill, a location which Morrison knew to be a distribution point for

illegal drugs. Making such trips was consistent with someone picking up illegal drugs and

importing them to Maine.

Morrison also knew from Lee that Lovell was making another quick round trip to Haverhill

that same day - a trip in which it appeared Lovell had travelled down to Portland, boarded a

southbound train, got off in Haverhill, and spent only 38 minutes in Haverhill before boarding a

northbound train. Detective Lee was an experienced law enforcement officer whose information

had led to seizures and arrests in the past, and he told Agent Morrison when Lovell's train was

scheduled to arrive - information that was confirmed when Morrison saw someone matching the

photo on Lovell's driver's license walk through the station.

4 Detective Lee had also reported to Morrison the information Lee had received from

Conductor Gato that Lovell and a companion had appeared high on the December 23 trip and that

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

Related

Florida v. JL
529 U.S. 266 (Supreme Court, 2000)
State v. Vaughan
2009 ME 63 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2009)
State v. Gulick
2000 ME 170 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2000)
State v. Lafond
2002 ME 124 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2002)
State v. LaForge
2012 ME 65 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2012)
State v. Porter
2008 ME 175 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Maine v. Lovell, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-lovell-mesuperct-2021.