State of Maine v. Touchton
This text of State of Maine v. Touchton (State of Maine v. Touchton) 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.
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT SAGADAHOC, ss CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-05-038
STATE OF MAINE v. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND JOHN TOUCHTON, MOTION TO DISMlSS Defendant
The defendant argues that the search warrant is defective on its face based on the
language on page three of the warrant and that the affidavit does not provide a
substantial basis for a finding of probable cause. For the following reasons, the motion
to suppress is denied.
The affidavit provides the officer's rationale for requesting a "no knock and night
time warrant." See Affidavit at 9; M.R. Crim. P. 41(i). The warrant provides that "this
warrant may be executed in the daytime or nighttime between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m." See Warrant at 3; M.R. Crim. P. 41(h). Evidence "obtained in objectively
reasonable reliance on a subsequently invalidated search warrant" need not be
suppressed in every case. U.S. v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984). Assuming that the warrant in this case is defective, nothng in t h s case suggests that the officers' reliance
on the technical sufficiency of the warrant was not objectively reasonable. See id. The
defect, if any, in h s warrant is not so facially deficient to establish a lack of good faith
on the part of the officers and is not the kind to alert the executing officers. See U.S. v.
Dethlefs, 883 F.Supp. 766,773-74 (D. Me. 1995). The affidavit contains sufficient facts to establish probable cause that a crime had
been committed on the premises to be searched and to justify issuance of the warrant.
See State v. Crowlev, 1998 ME 187, ¶ 4,714 A.2d 834,836. The entry is
The Motion to Suppress is DENIED.
The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
Date: September 8, 2005 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT VS SAGADAHOC, ss . JOHN TOUCHTON Docket No BATSC-CR-2005-00038 786 CARDING MACHINE ROAD BOWDOINHAM ME 04008 DOCKET RECORD
DOB: 01/09/1957 Attorney: ANDREWS CAMPBELL State's Attorney: GEOFFREY RUSHLAU CAMPBELL LAW OFFICE 45 KALERS CORNER ROAD WALDOBORO ME 04572 RETAINED 03/25/2005
Filing Document: INDICTMENT Major Case Type: FELONY (CLASS A,B,C) Filing Date: 03/24/2005
Charge (s)
1 UNLAWFUL TRAFFICKING IN SCHEDULED DRUGS 01/20/2005 BOWDOINHAM Seq 8541 17-A 1103 (1-A)(A) Class B WOODMAN / MDE 2 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF SCHEDULED DRUG 01/20/2005 BOWDOINHAM Seq 8568 17-A 1107-A(1) (B)(1) Class C WOODMAN / MDE 3 CRIMINAL FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY 01/20/2005 BOWDOINHAM Seq 7049 15 5826 Class U WOODMAN / MDE
Docket Events:
03/24/2005 FILING DOCUMENT - INDICTMENT FILED ON 03/24/2005
TRANSFER - BAIL AND PLEADING GRANTED ON 03/24/2005
TRANSFER - BAIL AND PLEADING REQUESTED ON 03/24/2005
03/24/2005 Charge (s): 1,2,3 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 04/07/2005 @ 1:00
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 03/24/2005 Charge(s) : 1,2,3 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT NOTICE SENT ON 03/24/2005
03/24/2005 SUMMONS/SERVICE - SUMMONS TO APPEAR FOR ARRAIGN ISSUED FOR 03/24/2005
03/25/2005 Party(s): JOHN TOUCHTON ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 03/25/2005
Attorney: ANDREWS CAMPBELL 03/29/2005 BAIL BOND - $2,500.00 CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 03/29/2005
Bail Receipt Type: CR Bail Amt: $2,500 Page 1 of 4 Printed on: 09/12/2005
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Maine v. Touchton, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-touchton-mesuperct-2005.