State of Maine v. Reynolds

Superior Court of Maine·Decided May 14, 2009·No. KENcr-08-955·Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss CRINIINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-08r955

/:!/7/) " " /,1 ~/<I (-::'C)

~ ... :~. , , .... ­ ~, , . ~ - ,., •.• r .. _ .•

STATE OF MAINE c ,_.~"" '~, .~ \ / . . , ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S

\

v. MOTION TO SUPPRESS EMMANUEL REYNOLDS Defendant

The defendant seeks to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a bail search.

For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part. FINDINGS On 12/16/08, Winslow Police Officer Nathan Walker was on patrol on Monument Street in Winslow when he noticed the defendant driving a motor vehicle with a female passenger. Officer Walker was familiar with the defendant and knew he was on bail for assault with conditions of random search and testing of the defendant's person, vehicle, and residence for illegal drugs and alcohol. (State's Ex. 1.) Officer Walker stopped the defendant's vehicle for a bail check just after 9:00 p.m. The defendant agreed to go to the police station for a search. The defendant rode with the officer in the back seat of the cruiser. The defendant was not restrained or handcuffed. Maine State Police Trooper Derrick Record also responded to the scene, stood by during the traffic stop, and followed Officer Walker to the police station. He assisted based on concerns for officer safety.

In the bathroom at the station, Officer Walker asked the defendant to remove his clothes but not his underwear. Officer Walker searched the defendant's clothes but not his person. Officer Walker found nothing and noted no bulges to indicate anything was taped under the defendant's scrotum, which Officer Walker had heard from a

confidential informant was the defendant's practice with regard to hiding drugs. The defendant put his clothes on.

Officer Walker then told the defendant the officer intended to search the defendant's apartment and asked if the defendant wanted a ride to the apartment. The defendant agreed to accompany the officer and, again, rode unrestrained in the back seat of the cruiser. Trooper Record followed Officer Walker to the apartment.

Upon arrival, the defendant opened the door to the apartment and the officers and the defendant entered the apartment. Andrea Dyer was present with her baby. Officer Walker did not know Ms. Dyer.

While Trooper Record remained in the kitchen-living room area, Officer Walker searched the defendant's bedroom. He lifted the mattress and looked around at items in plain view. He did not search the bureau, closets, or clothing. Officer Walker told the defendant he was "all set" and left the apartment with Trooper Record.

Officer Walker had previously received information from a confidential informant that the defendant was hiding cocaine above the doorframe in the common area of the apartment building outside the defendant's apartment. Trooper Record lifted Officer Walker up toward the top of the doorframe of the door that led to the laundry area. Officer Walker saw white powder in plastic bags. Officer Walker seized the bags. The powder was subsequently tested and identified as cocaine.

The defendant then entered the hallway and walked in and out of the apartment two or three times. Officer Walker informed the defendant the officers had found the cocaine. The defendant replied that the cocaine was not his. The defendant was not taken into custody at that time.

At the request of Officer Walker, Winslow Police Officer Haley Flemming arrived next at the apartment building. Officer Flemming and Trooper Record entered

the defendant's aparbnent. Both spoke to Ms. Dyer. She told the officers that after Officer Walker and Trooper Record left the aparbnent the first time, the defendant entered, removed a plastic bag from his groin area, and directed her to put the pills in the hood of a sweat shirt. Ms. Dyer showed the officers where the pills were located.

Trooper Record advised Ms. Dyer that she was placing herself and her child in a bad situation. He told her that law enforcement knew the defendant was moving drugs from the aparbnent, and because she lived there, she must know what was happening. She agreed that she did. Trooper Record stated that she could be considered part of the criminal enterprise and could be charged with criminal offenses. He stated that he could call the Deparbnent of Health and Human Services. Trooper Record told Ms. Dyer it was in her best interests to "come clean" and not lie to the officers but he did not threaten any consequences if she did not cooperate.

Officer Walker remained outside while Trooper Record and Officer Flemming were in the aparbnent. The defendant was with Officer Walker part of the time and was able to come and go, as he wanted. When Trooper Record left the aparbnent and reported that 152 Oxycodone pills had been found in the aparbnent in small plastic bags, Officer Walker advised the defendant that he was under arrest, handcuffed him, and placed him in the back seat of the cruiser. No Miranda warnings were given to the defendant at that time.

Kennebec County Sheriff's Deparbnent Deputy George Neagle arrived next.

Officer Walker asked if the defendant would submit to a canine search of the defendant's person. He agreed. Deputy Neagle was aware the defendant was in custody and did not advise him of the Miranda warnings. Deputy Neagle told the defendant about the narcotic-detection dog and that this was an opportunity for the defendant to help himself by cooperating. Deputy Neagle asked the defendant if he

had any drugs and the defendant replied that he did not. He stated that he smoked marijuana earlier that morning. The search was conducted by Deputy Neagle with Officer Walker present. During the search, the dog gave a positive indication at the defendant's crotch area. Deputy Neagle asked again whether the defendant had any drugs on him. The defendant said he did not but changed his earlier statement about having smoked marijuana earlier to having marijuana in his pants. He said he gave the marijuana to someone because he did not want to get caught. No illegal drugs were located during the search. The defendant was placed in the cruiser again.

Officer Flemming took the defendant to the police station. Officer Walker conducted the booking process and read the Miranda warnings to the defendant at approximately 11:59 p.m. Officer Walker read each question and obtained an answer to each question. The defendant understood his rights, did not want to speak to the officer, and signed the form. (State's Ex. 2.) Thereafter, Officer Walker did not ask any questions except routine booking questions.

Officer Walker called the bail commissioner, who set the defendant's bail during the telephone call. Officer Walker told the bail commissioner in the defendant's presence the charges that would be brought against him. Officer Walker completed the uniform summons and complaint and gave it to the defendant.

Officers Walker and Flemming walked with the defendant to the parking lot of the police station. He asked if he could smoke a cigarette. Officer Walker handcuffed the defendant's hands in front of his body as opposed to the rear so he could smoke. The defendant appeared nervous and scared and was almost crying. The defendant stated he would have to "man up" to the pills and admitted the pills were his but denied that the cocaine was his. Neither officer asked questions before or after those statements were made.

Officer Flemming then transported the defendant to the Kennebec County Correctional Facility in Officer Walker's cruiser. Officer Flemming asked no questions en route. CONCLUSIONS The defendant's bail conditions provide for random search and testing of his person, vehicle, and residence. The search of the defendant's person at the police station was reasonable, especially considering the information conveyed to law enforcement from a confidential informant.

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

State of Maine v. Reynolds, (Me. Super. Ct. 2009).

State of Maine v. Reynolds (State of Maine v. Reynolds) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Breithaupt v. Abram
352 U.S. 432 (Supreme Court, 1957)
Rhode Island v. Innis
446 U.S. 291 (Supreme Court, 1980)
State v. Foy
662 A.2d 238 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1995)
State v. Thibodeau
317 A.2d 172 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1974)
State v. Kremen
2000 ME 117 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2000)
State v. Higgins
2002 ME 77 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2002)
State v. Griatzky
587 A.2d 234 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1991)
State v. Hewes
558 A.2d 696 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1989)
State v. Sawyer
2001 ME 88 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2001)
State v. Bridges
2003 ME 103 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2003)
State v. Nixon
599 A.2d 66 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1991)
State v. Durepo
472 A.2d 919 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1984)
State v. Ullring
1999 ME 183 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1999)