State of Maine v. Tibbetts

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: May 3, 2007
• Docket: CUMcr-06-2849
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

(rue Copy STATE OF MAINE Attest: doUq a"JM/J-. SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. t/ Clerk:,;c~~ CRIMINAL ACTION Docket No. CR-06-2849 V

STATE OF MAINE,

v. ORDER

CHARLES TIBBETTS, OBD!=/< ", J OONALD L. GA ~ 1'••• <­ Defendant. LAW UBRpJI"

AUG 0 2. lUUI Before the court is defendant Charles Tibbetts's motion to suppress. Tibbetts

primarily contends that there was no reasonable articulable suspicion for the Terry stop

that led to Tibbetts's arrest for possession of hydrocodone.

Law enforcement officers are permitted to approach citizens on the streets and

ask them questions. However, before a law enforcement officer physically or through a

show of authority can restrain a citizen's freedom, he must first have a reasonable

articulable suspicion that a crime or other infraction has occurred. Terry v. Ohio, 392

US. 1, 27 (1968); State v. Kirb-r, 2005 ME 92 «]I 12, 878 A.2d 499, 502. The State has the

burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the officer had a reasonable

articulable suspicion.

Based on the evidence introduced at a hearing on April 24, 2007, the court makes

the following findings:

On October 6, 2006 Lt. William Preis and Sgt. Dan Hayden were in uniform and

traveling in a marked Portland Police cruiser on Cumberland Avenue. Lt. Preis is a 13­

year veteran of the Portland Police Department. In the course of his career with the

Portland Police Department he also worked for 1-2 years as a special agent with the

Maine Drug Enforcement Agency and has attended various classes relating to narcotics

investigation. On October 6, while riding in the cruiser as a passenger, Lt. Preis observed a

group of 3 males standing together at the entrance to an alley near the YMCA. Lt. Preis

was aware that the Portland Police Department had previously received one or more

complaints that persons were using and selling drugs in the area of that same alley. Lt.

Preis observed one of the males (later identified as Tibbetts) give money to one of the

other males. Tibbetts then stuffed his hand down in his pocket as if he were putting

something in his pocket. Sgt. Hayden stopped the cruiser, and the three men

immediately put their heads down and started walking away quickly in different

directions.

Preis got out of the cruIser, called for Tibbetts to stop and, when Tibbetts did not,

jogged a few steps after Tibbetts.! When Preis caught up to Tibbetts, Tibbetts stopped

and Preis began to ask him what he was doing there. Preis did not frisk, pat down, or

search Tibbetts at this point. A moment later, however, Sgt. Hayden (who had

confronted the other two males) called out that he had found a large quantity of drugs.

At that point Preis told Tibbetts he was going to search him for drugs, and Tibbetts then

produced the drugs that he is now charged with possessing.

Discussion

The first question - and the issue on which Tibbetts places his emphasis - is

whether Lt. Preis had a reasonable articulable suspicion sufficient to justify his action in

stopping Tibbetts from leaving the vicinity. The court finds that the actions of Lt. Preis,

in calling for Tibbetts to stop and in jogging after Tibbetts to confront him and begin

questioning him, constituted a temporary seizure. Preis, by a show of his authority,

1 At one point in his testimony Lt. Preis stated that he had yelled at Tibbetts to stop. Upon further questioning, however, Pries said he was not sure he yelled. The court finds that Pries raised his voice and instructed Tibbetts to stop.

2 restrained Tibbetts from continuing to walk away. At that point, however, Preis had a

reasonable articulable suspicion (as opposed to a mere hunch) that Tibbetts had just

been engaged in a drug transaction. Preis was an experienced narcotics investigator.

Tibbetts was observed in a location where drug transactions were reported to have

occurred. He was in a group of three males, had just given money to one of the others,

and was shoving his hand into his pocket in a way that was consistent wi th stowing

drugs he had just obtained. AIthough Tibbetts's actions up to that point could also have

been consistent with an innocent transaction, the furtive behavior of Tibbetts and the

other males when the police cruiser stopped (putting down their heads and scattering

in different directions) gave rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion on the part of Lt.

Preis that Tibbetts had just been involved in a drug transaction.

Although Preis was therefore justified briefly detaining Tibbetts to inquire what

he was doing, Preis did not have a basis to search Tibbetts at that time. To be sure,

under Terry, Preis would have been able to frisk Tibbetts if he had been concerned that

Tibbetts had a weapon. However, as far as the court is aware, a frisk accompanying a

Terry stop must be based on a concern about officer safety. See State v. Kirby, 2005 ME

92 ~ 12, 878 A.2d 499, 502; State v. Storey, 1998 ME 161 ~~ 12-13 and n.6, 713 A.2d 331,

334 n.6. Preis did not testify that he was concerned about officer safety and did not

undertake a Terry-style frisk for that purpose.

As a result, whether Preis was justified in telling Tibbetts of his intent to search

Tibbetts, thereby causing Tibbetts to produce the drugs he was carrying/ depends on

whether Preis had probable cause to arrest Tibbetts at that time. See State v. Langlois,

2005 ME 3 ~ 8,863 A.2d 913, 916 (once police actions go beyond what is permitted by a

2The State correctly does not argue trlat Tibbetts's actions, in proffering the drugs after being threatened with an imminent search, constituted either a consent to search or a voluntary surrender of the drugs.

3 Terry stop, the detention amounts to an arrest that must be supported by probable

cause). However, at the point he announced his intention to search Tibbetts, Preis had

been informed by Sgt. Hayden that drugs had been found on one of the other males. 3

Probable cause exists when reasonably trustworthy information within the knowledge

of the police would warrant a prudent and cautious person to believe that the arrestee

had committed a crime. ~ State v. Forsyth, 2002 ME 75

State v. Candage, 549 A.2d 355, 360 (Me. 1988). In this instance, once Sgt. Hayden

reported that drugs had been found on another male, Preis had probable cause to arrest

Tibbetts, and he would therefore have been entitled to search Tibbetts incident to arrest.

Under these circumstances, Preis's announcement that he intended to search Tibbetts,

followed by Tibbetts's decision to hand over the drugs upon being threatened with an

imminent search, did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

The entry shall be:

Defendant's motion to suppress is denied.

DATED: May.3 ,2007

Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court

3 No evidence was offered at the hearing as to how Sgt. Hayden had learned that one of the other males possessed drugs. Tibbetts does not have standing to raise any Fourth Amendment issues with respect to Sgt. Hayden's interaction with the other males.