State of Maine v. Pratt

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedAugust 3, 2015
DocketCUMcr-15-277
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Pratt (State of Maine v. Pratt) 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. Pratt, (Me. Super. Ct. 2015).

Opinion

0( 3672

STATE OF MAINE l '.•. UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET '..1 '-'.

CUMBERLAND, ss. /'• I .-

~\. .J i.._. -- . -- No. CR-15-277

STATE OF MAINE 3 PPl '1 15

v. ORDER

CODY PRATT,

Defendant

Before the court is a motion to suppress by defendant Cody Pratt. Pratt seeks to suppress

both certain statements he made at the scene of an accident and the results of a blood test that

was taken at CMMC, where he was taken for treatment after the accident.

Statements

Pratt's contends that his statements were involuntary under the circumstances given the

injuries he had suffered. At the hearing, although the motion had been continued to allow the

officer to be present, the officer was not present. The State has the burden of demonstrating that

statements are voluntary and offered no evidence to meet that burden. Pratt's statements at the

scene of the accident that there was no one else in the vehicle and that he had been driving are

suppressed.

Results ofblood test

The blood test results were obtained by a search warrant issued by the District Court

(Darvin, J.). Pratt argues that the blood test results were illegally obtained for two reasons. He

argues that there was a HIP AA violation because the warrant affidavit states that Officer Gaumont had been advised by CMMC medical staff that blood had been drawn from Pratt and

that the blood had been screened for alcohol.

First, there is no suggestion in the record that CMMC Medical staff told Gaumont what

Pratt's medical records disclosed as to his alcohol content. Pratt argues that it was a violation of

HIP AA for CMMC staff even to tell Officer Gaumont that blood had been drawn and that an

alcohol screen had been performed. Even is this is correct, Pratt has offered no authority for the

proposition that a search warrant must be invalidated if the officer relies on information provided

by private parties who disclosed that information in violation of HIP AA. Officer Gaumont is not

a health care provider subject to HIP AA, and his inclusion of the information that Pratt's blood

had been drawn did not violate HIP AA.

Second, although Pratt argues that he has a right to cross-examine the officer on whether

he was aware that HIP AA had been violated, Pratt has not submitted an affidavit making a

substantial preliminary showing that Officer Gaumont's warrant affidavit contains any deliberate

or reckless falsehoods, and Pratt is therefore not entitled to a hearing under Delaware v. Franks,

438 U.S. 154 (1978). See State v. Van Sickle, 580 A.2d 691,693 (Me. 1990).

Third, even if the warrant affidavit did not contain the information that CMMC staff had

told Gaumont that there had been a blood draw and an alcohol screen, there would have been

probable cause to issue a warrant to determine if such information had been collected.

Pratt's second challenge is based on the wording of the warrant, which lists the place to

be searched as the person of Cody Pratt. However, from the warrant affidavit and from other

language in the warrant itself, it is evident that what was sought to be seized were medical

records evidencing a blood sample alcohol screen. Read as a whole, the warrant and the affidavit

provided sufficient specificity as to the items to be seized. See Commonwealth v. Truax, 397

2 ' ..,

Mass. 174, 180-81, 490 N.E.2d 425 (1986). The requirement of specificity in a warrant is

intended to prevent a general exploratory search, and Pratt does not argue that the warrant at

issue in this case authorized such a search nor is he arguing that medical records were obtained

that were unrelated to his blood-alcohol content.

Accordingly, Pratt's motion to suppress statements he made at the scene of the accident is

granted and his motion to suppress the blood alcohol results obtained by search warrant is

denied.

Dated: August 3 , 20 15

Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court

3 STATE OF MAINE CRIMINAL DOCKET VS CUMBERLAND, ss. CODY J PRATI Docket No CUMCD-CR-2015-00277 P. 0. BOX 722 NAPLES ME 04055 DOCKET RECORD DOB: I0/3111985 Attorney: EDWARD DILWORTH State's Attorney: JENNIFER ACKERMAN DOWS LAW OFFICE PA PO BOX 349 NORWAY ME 04268 RETAINED 05/26/2015 Filing Document: INDICTMENT Major Case Type: FELONY (CLASS A,B,C) Filing Date: 01/09/2015 Charge(s) 1 OUI (ALCOHOL), 2 PRIORS 10/11/2014 WINDHAM Seq 12946 29-A 2411(1-A)(B)(2) Class C GAUMONT BRI Docket Events: 01/14/2015 FILING DOCUMENT- INDICTMENT FILED ON 01/09/2015

01/14/2015 BAIL BOND- $2,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 01/09/2015 .JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE $2000 CASH BAIL. NO USE OR POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL OR ILLEGAL DRUGS. SUBJECT TO RANDOM SEARCHES AND TESTING FOR SAME. 01/14/2015 WARRANT- $2,000.00 ON COMP/INDICTMENT ORDERED ON 01/09/2015 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE $2000 CASH BAIL. NO USE OR POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL OR ILLEGAL DRUGS. SUBJECT TO RANDOM SEARCHES AND TESTING FOR SAME. 01114/2015 WARRANT- $2,000.00 ON COMP/INDICTMENT ISSUED ON 01/14/2015

$2000 CASH BAIL. NO USE OR POSSESSION OF ALCOHOL OR ILLEGAL DRUGS. SUBJECT TO RANDOM SEARCHES AND TESTING FOR SAME. 04/30/2015 WARRANT- ON COMP/INDICTMENT EXECUTED BY AGENCY ON 04/30/2015 at 04:44p.m.

05/04/20 IS Charge(s): 1 HEARING- ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 05/01/2015 ROLAND A COLE , JUSTICE DA: ANGELA CANNON Defendant Present in Court DEFENDANT INFORMED OF CHARGES. 21 DAYS TO FILE MOTIONS FTR#1 05/04/2015 Charge(s): 1 PLEA- NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 05/01/2015

05/04/2015 BAIL BOND- CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 05/0112015 ROLAND A COLE , JUSTICE $750 .. WI MPS CONTRACT 05/04/2015 OTHER FILING- PRETRIAL SERVICES CONTRACT FILED ON 05/01/2015

05/04/2015 OTHER FILING- PRETRIAL SERVICES CONTRACT APPROVED ON 05/0112015 ROLAND A COLE , JUSTICE 05/04/2015 HEARING- DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 07/16/2015 at 10:00 a.m. in Room No. 7

05/04/2015 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 08/10/2015 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. II

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL CR-200 Page 1 of 3 Printed on: 08/04/2015 CODY J PRATT CUMCD-CR-20 15-00277 DOCKET RECORD 05/04/2015 MOTION- MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 05/01/2015

05/04/2015 MOTION- MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL DENIED ON 05/01/2015 ROLAND A COLE , JUSTICE OVER INCOME 05/05/2015 BAIL BOND- $750.00 CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 05/04/2015

Bail Receipt Type: CR Bail Amt: $750 Receipt Type: CK Date Bailed: 05/01/2015 Prvdr Name: SOUTHERN DOTSON Rtrn Name: SOUTHERN DOTSON 409 3RD PARTY DOB 6-28-81 05/26/2015 Party(s): CODY J PRATT ATI'ORNEY- RETAINED ENTERED ON 05/26/2015

Attorney: EDWARD DILWORTH 06/30/2015 HEARING- DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ON 06/30/2015

07115/2015 Charge(s): I MOTION- MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 07/14/2015

Attorney: EDWARD DILWORTH MOTION TO CONTINUE DISPO ON 7-16-15. ADA ACKERMAN DOES NOT OBJECT 07/16/2015 Charge(s): I MOTION- MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 07116/2015 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 07116/2015 HEARING- DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE CONTINUED ON 07/16/2015 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE 07/16/2015 Charge(s): I HEARING- DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 07/23/2015 at 01:00p.m. in Room No. 7

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

Related

Franks v. Delaware
438 U.S. 154 (Supreme Court, 1978)
State v. Van Sickle
580 A.2d 691 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1990)
Commonwealth v. Truax
490 N.E.2d 425 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Maine v. Pratt, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-pratt-mesuperct-2015.