State of Maine v. Pond

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: August 31, 2021
• Docket: AROcr-19-366
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL COURT AROOSTOOK, ss LOCATION: CARIBOU DOCKET NO. AROCD-CR-19-00366

STATE OF MAINE ) ) ) v. ) ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS ) ) THOMAS POND ) )

The Defendant was charged by the State in a two-count indictment with the offenses of

Aggravated Trafficking in Scheduled Drugs, Class A, and Unlawful Possession of Scheduled

Drugs, Class C. The events that served as the State's basis for the charges were alleged to have

occurred in Caribou on or about August 7, 2019.

Through his motion to suppress, Defendant contends that the officer lacked articulable

suspicion to detain Defendant, his vehicle or his passenger. Further, the Defendant contends that

search of his vehicle without his consent was impermissible.

A hearing on the Defendant's motion to suppress was held on August 23, 2021. The

Defendant was present and represented by Alan Harding, Esq. The State was represented by

Assistant District Attorney Christiana Rein, Esq. The court received testimony from Officer Chad

Cochran of the Caribou Police Department. Defendant called no witnesses and offered no

evidence.

Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, the court issues the following findings

of fact, conclusions of law, and resulting order:

1 Findings of Fact

On the evening of August 7, 2019, the Houlton communications center received a repmi

from Victoria Dugal (hereinafter "Dugal") that she observed a Chevrolet pickup truck operating

on Route I in Caribou in an erratic manner and the truck hit a construction cone. The report

included a description of the truck and a partial plate number. The communication center relayed

the information and Caribou police officer Chad Cochran (hereinafter "Cochran") was dispatched

to investigate the report. Cochran was in uniform and was in a marked police cruiser. He

proceeded to Route I south in Caribou. There was very little traffic at this time. As Coclu·an was

headed south on Route 1, he observed tail lights on the Doyle Road heading away from Route I.

He proceeded to follow the tail lights on the Doyle Road. The vehicle proceeded to the West

Presque Isle Road and likewise, Cochran continued his pursuit. At this time, Cochran did not

have his flashing blue lights activated.

As Cochran drew closer to the vehicle, he observed that the vehicle was a truck that was

similar in description to the one repmied by Dugal. In addition, the pmiial plate number matched

the info1mation provided by Dugal. Cochran observed the operator of the truck hitting the breaks

many times. For no apparent reason, the truck simply stopped in the middle of the travel lane

without the use of a blinker or emergency flasher lights. Cochran exited his cruiser and approach

the truck on foot to make sure the driver was "all set". As he was walking to the truck, it began to

slowly roll forward. Cochran yelled, "hey". Cochran did not ask or order the Defendant to stop.

He followed "hey" with "are you all set?"

The driver stopped the truck and Cochran spoke to the driver from outside the driver's

window. The driver indicated that he stopped because he thought he was being followed. Cochran

asked the operator for his license, registration, and proof of insurance. The operator identified

2 himself as Thomas Pond (hereinafter the "Defendant"). The Defendant indicated that he did not

have his license on him. The Defendant appeared nervous and exhibited fast and shaky speech.

Cochran noted that there was another occupant in the vehicle, a woman. Cochran asked the woman

for her name, date of birth and last four digits of her social security number. The woman was

somewhat evasive. She appeared hesitant in providing the name and date of birth and did not

know the last four digits of her social security number. The woman identified herself as Brittany

Hanson with a date of birth of November 22, 1995.

Cochran returned to his cruiser to run the names of the Defendant and the woman. After

running the information provided by the Defendant and the woman in the officer's information

system, he determined that no match was found for the woman. Cochran returned to the

Defendant's truck to continue with his inquiry as to the woman's identity.

When the officer inquired again as to her date of birth, she provided a different date of birth

of October 25, 1995. The officer returned to the crniser to run the information and again, no match

was found in the officer's information system. Cochran went back to the trnck and asked for

information from the Defendant regarding the woman. The Defendant confirmed the name

previously provided by the woman. This information would later be shown to have been false and

was !mown to the Defendant to be false. The court notes that at the same time Cochran was

continuing to investigate the woman's identity, he was also asking follow up questions of the

Defendant to dispel his concerns that the Defendant may be operating the vehicle while under the

influence of intoxicants.

Unable to confirm the woman's identity, Cochran then proceeded around the passenger

side of the truck to speak with the woman. The elapsed time from the initial interaction with the

Defendant to the time when the officer opened the passenger door to speak with the woman was

3 approximately 13 minutes. The elapsed time from the final question of the Defendant regarding

his erratic operation of the truck to the time when the officer opened the passenger door to speak

with the woman was approximately 3 minutes.

The woman initially reported she had a Maine state identification card and then stated she

did not have a Maine State identification card. She was fumbling around in her pursue when she

was asked for other material with her name on and Cochran observed drug paraphernalia in the

form of a hypodermic needle that fell out of an eyeglass case in her purse.

Cochran proceeded to search the woman's purse and found the needle, aluminum foil, an

apparatus for snorting drugs, and a rock material that he identified, based upon his training and

experience, as consistent with methamphetamine. The woman informed Cochran that the

substance was methamphetamine or fake methamphetamine that was given to her by another

person for her to attempt to sell. Cochran then searched the passenger seat area and the area within

arm's reach of the front passenger seat. Cochran observed a glass pipe with burn marks on it in the

center console cup holder. Cochran observed that the glass pipe was drug paraphernalia commonly

used to smoke methamphetamine.

At that point, Cochran placed the woman in handcuffs and inquired of the Defendant

whether Cochran had his consent to search the remainder of the truck. The Defendant replied, "I

would rather you not." Cochran proceeded to search the remainder of the truck without the

Defendant's consent. The search of the truck revealed a small Tupperware container with

methamphetamine contained within it.

Analysis

This case does not involve a traditional traffic stop. This case involves the approach by a

law enforcement officer to the Defendant's vehicle while he was stopped in the middle of the travel

4 lane. As Cochran was walking up to the Defendant's vehicle to make sme the Defendant was not

in any distress and make sure he was "all set", the Defendant started to roll forward and the officer

yelled to him, "hey". Cochran did not ask or order the Defendant to stop, and he followed "hey"

with "are you all set?" "Not 'every contact between police and a citizen implicates the Fourth

Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; an officer may approach a

citizen and engage in a consensual conversation without effecting a detention for purposes of the

Fourth Amendment, and thus need not have an articulable suspicion before engaging in that

conversation."' State v. Cunneen, 2019 ME 44, ~15. However, what is initially a simple

community encounter may transition to a seizure. As noted by the Law Court in State v. Garland:

"[w]henever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person." Terry v. State ofOhio, 392 U.S. 1, 16, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1877, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). Officer Langella by asking Garland for identification, by reason of his authority as an officer of the law, effectively restrained the defendant's resumption of his journey and his driving away; this police action brought into play the protections of the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable seizures as applied to the states by the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV."

State v. Garland, 482 A.2d 139, 142 (Me. 1984); See also, State v. Gulick, 2000 ME 170, Pl 1, 759

A.2d 1085, 1088 (No seizure by merely approaching the car and inquiring of its occupants,

however asking for the license, following up with a request for identifying information, and having

defendant wait while he ran a check on the status of defendant's right to operate a vehicle­

constituted a detention, or seizure, for Fourth Amendment purposes).

In order to justify a seizure, the State must show that the officer had "specific and

articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably

warrant that intrusion." State v. Gulick, 2000 ME 170, P12-P13, 759 A.2d 1085, 1088 (Citing,

State v. Dulac, 600 A.2d 1121, 1122 (Me. 1992)(quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 20 L. Ed.

2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)). Brief intrusions based upon reasonable and articulable (1) safety

5 concerns, see State v. Pinkham, 565 A.2d 318, 319 (Me. 1989); (2) suspicion that the defendant

has committed a crime, see Terry, 392 U.S. at 21; State v. Mehuren, 594 A.2d 1073, 1075 (Me.

1991 ); or (3) suspicion that the defendant has committed a traffic infraction, see State v. Hill, 606

A.2d 793, 795 (Me. 1992), are "reasonable" and are, therefore, not in violation of the Fourth

Amendment. Id.

As soon as Cochran asked for the Defendant's license and vehicle information, a seizure

occurred. See, State v. Garland, 482 A.2d at 142-143 (Me. 1984). As of that moment, the officer

had a reasonable articulable suspicion to warrant the intrusion. The eye witness report of erratic

operation combined with the officer's own observations of the operator of the vehicle repeatedly

tapping the breaks and the dead stop of the vehicle in the middle of the travel lane for no apparent

reason were sufficient to form a reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver was in distress or

operating under the influence. The Defendant informed the officer that he did not have his license

on him at the outset of the encounter. Pursuant to 29-A M.R.S. §1408, a driver must have his or

her license in their possession when operating a motor vehicle.

The Defendant contends that the additional inquiry regarding the passenger of his vehicle

and the search that followed were in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and Terry v. Ohio.

In a traffic stop, officers may insist that passengers exit the vehicle without even a reasonable

suspicion that they were engaged in wrongdoing. Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 413-15, 117

S. Ct. 882, 137 L. Ed. 2d 41 ( 1997). A police officer may also request identifying information from

the passengers in a traffic stop without particularized suspicion that they pose a safety risk or are

violating the law, "[s]o long as the request [does] not 'measurably extend the duration of the

stop.'" United States v. Fernandez, 600 F.3d 56, 57, 62 (1st Cir. 2010). The court's inquiry is

therefore into whether the officer diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to

6 confirm or dispel his suspicions quickly. US. v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 686 (1985). The

reasonableness of the officer's actions must be viewed based upon the totality ofthe circumstances.

When Cochran asked the passenger for her name, date of birth and last four digits of her

social security number, he had no reason to believe that she was engaged in criminal activity. It

was simply this officer's standard procedure to identify the occupants of a vehicle involved in a

traffic stop. The procedure employed by Cochran was to determine whether there are wairnnts,

bail conditions, or orders prohibiting contact between the occupants of a vehicle involved in a

traffic stop. The mere inquiry into the woman's identity clearly did not "measurably extend the

duration of the stop." Fernandez at 62.

Cochran observed that the woman was being evasive. She appeared hesitant in providing

the name and date of birth and did not !mow the last four digits of her social security number. Both

the woman and the Defendant continued to provide Cochran with false information regarding her

identity. This information would later be shown to have been false and the Defendant !mew it was

false. 1 The court notes that at the same time Cochran was investigating the woman's identity, he

was continuing to asking follow up questions of the Defendant to dispel Cochran's concern that

the Defendant may have been operating the vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants.

Within moments of his final question of the Defendant regarding the erratic operation of

the vehicle, Cochran observed drug paraphernalia fall out of the eyeglass case in the woman's

purse. The search of the purse thereafter yielded additional drug paraphernalia and what appeared

1 It was not until approximately 32 minutes into the interaction that the Defendant finally revealed the true identity of the passenger after having repeatedly participated in the ruse in an attempt to mislead Cochran. The video makes clear that when the Defendant did state that he was "pretty sw·e he name was Kayla" that may have been a slip by the Defendant. When Cochran asks him to repeat the name, he says "Gayla" with a "G" in a fumble of words. In the crniser, away from the Defendant and Cochran, the woman was for the first time providing her trne identity to another officer. She was in fact Kayla Hanson with a date of birth of November 22, 1999. She had an active warrant for her aiTest issued by this court in AROCD-CR-2019-40026.

7 to be methamphetamine. This information caused the officer's initial inquiry to expand to include

a drug investigation involving the truck and both occupants.

"Pursuant to the automobile exception, 'the existence of probable cause justifies a

warrantless seizure and reasonable search of a motor vehicle irrespective of the existence of

exigent circumstances."' State v. Melvin, 2008 ME 118,115, 955 A.2d 245, 250 (Citing, State v.

Ireland, 1998 ME 35, 17, 706 A.2d 597, 599)(citing, among others, US. v. Infante- Ruiz, 13 F.3d

498, 502 (I st Cir. 1994)("It is now established that if the police have probable cause to believe that

either a vehicle or a container within a vehicle contains contraband, evidence of crime, or other

matter that may lawfully be seized, no Fourth Amendment violation occurs .... ")). "Today, the

inherent mobility of a motor vehicle coupled with the reduced expectation of privacy associated

with it justifies the warrantless search of that vehicle so long as the search is supported by probable

cause." State v. Tomah, 586 A.2d 1267, 1269 (Me. 1991)(Citing, State v. Tarantino, 587 A.2d

1095 (Me. 1991); United States v. Panitz, 907 F.2d 1267, 1271 (I'' Cir. 1990)).

"Probable cause exists when the officers' personal knowledge of facts and circumstances,

in combination with any reasonably trustworthy information conveyed to them, would warrant a

prudent person to believe that the area to be searched holds evidence of a crime ..." Id. (Citing,

State v. Drown, 2007 ME 142, 18, 937 A.2d 157, 159). "In order for the plain view exception to

the warrant requirement to apply, the "incriminating character" of the evidence must be

"immediately apparent," State v. McNaughton, 2017 ME 173,142, 168 A.3d 807, and the officers

must have a legitimate reason to be in the place from which they make their observation, Coolidge,

403 U.S. at 465-66." State v. Sullivan, 2018 ME 37, PIS, 181 A.3d 178, 184. Cochran observed

the paraphernalia in plain view after the woman was rummaging around in her pursue. Therefore,

the search of her purse was valid.

8 After the search of her purse revealed additional paraphernalia and a substance that

appeared to be methamphetamine and the officer observed what appeared to be a

methamphetamine pipe sitting in the cup holder, those factors combined with the other factors as

set forth above provided Cochran with probable cause to search the Defendant's vehicle. State v.

Michael M., 2001 ME 92 ~6, 772 A.2d 1179, 1182 ("Probable cause to search exists when there is

a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place").

Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Defendant's motion

to suppress is hereby DENIED. This matter shall proceed to docket call.

The entry shall be:

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.

Dated: August J/ , 2021 ffe;:_. Ji'istice, Maine Superior Court