State v. Patten

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Patten

436 A.2d 387, 1981 Me. LEXIS 991

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedOctober 30, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 436 A.2d 387 (State v. Patten) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial 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 v. Patten, 436 A.2d 387, 1981 Me. LEXIS 991 (Me. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

The State appeals from a Superior Court order suppressing evidence seized by the State without a warrant. On an informant’s tip, the Aroostook County Sheriff’s Department seized a car driven by appellant Michael Patten, whom they believed to be transporting marijuana. The officers seized and searched a closed brown paper bag they discovered on the back seat; inside the bag, they discovered marijuana. At the suppression hearing, the presiding justice found that the warrantless stop, seizure, and search of Patten’s automobile and the seizure of the brown paper bag were valid, but he found that the subsequent search of the bag was not valid without a warrant. The State contends that the automobile exception to the fourth amendment requirement of a warrant justified the search of the bag. We disagree.

This case falls squarely within the holdings of State v. Blais, Me., 416 A.2d 1253 (1980), and State v. Hassapelis, Me., 404 A.2d 232 (1979), and is controlled thereby. In those decisions we held that “although the right to seize and search an automobile establishes the right to seize a container found in the vehicle, the right to search the container itself, without a warrant, must be independently established.” State v. Blais, supra, at 1257. See also Robbins v. California, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 69 L.Ed.2d 744 (1981) (No. 80-148). On the facts of this case, the State did not show any independent exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search of the brown paper bag.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

The State appeals from a Superior Court order suppressing evidence seized by the State without a warrant. On an informant’s tip, the Aroostook County Sheriff’s Department seized a car driven by appellant Michael Patten, whom they believed to be transporting marijuana. The officers seized and searched a closed brown paper bag they discovered on the back seat; inside the bag, they discovered marijuana. At the suppression hearing, the presiding justice found that the warrantless stop, seizure, and search of Patten’s automobile and the seizure of the brown paper bag were valid, but he found that the subsequent search of the bag was not valid without a warrant. The State contends that the automobile exception to the fourth amendment requirement of a warrant justified the search of the bag. We disagree.

This case falls squarely within the holdings of State v. Blais, Me., 416 A.2d 1253 (1980), and State v. Hassapelis, Me., 404 A.2d 232 (1979), and is controlled thereby. In those decisions we held that “although the right to seize and search an automobile establishes the right to seize a container found in the vehicle, the right to search the container itself, without a warrant, must be independently established.” State v. Blais, supra, at 1257. See also Robbins v. California, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 2841, 69 L.Ed.2d 744 (1981) (No. 80-148). On the facts of this case, the State did not show any independent exigent circumstances justifying the warrantless search of the brown paper bag.

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 A.2d 387, 1981 Me. LEXIS 991, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-patten-me-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack