State v. Townsend

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Townsend

571 A.2d 1206, 1990 Me. LEXIS 111

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedMarch 23, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 571 A.2d 1206 (State v. Townsend) 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. Townsend, 571 A.2d 1206, 1990 Me. LEXIS 111 (Me. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

HORNBY, Justice.

Contrary to the defendant’s arguments, the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Smith, J.) properly denied his motion to suppress. Assuming that the portion of the driveway on which the police officer entered was part of the curtilage, the police officer did not exceed the “implied invitation” to use it when he entered on legitimate police business. See State v. Cloutier, 544 A.2d 1277, 1279 (Me.1988). The police officer was pursuing his investigation of the defendant, see State v. Rand, 430 A.2d 808, 819 (Me.1981), even though he chose to disguise his real purpose by engaging the defendant in conversation about another matter. Combined with other information, the odor of marijuana apparent to the police officer from that location provided a substantial basis for the magistrate to find probable cause to issue a search warrant. See State v. Lutz, 553 A.2d 657, 659 (Me.1989). Finally, we find sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged, see State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985), and therefore affirm the judgment of the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Beaulieu, J.).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

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

HORNBY, Justice.

Contrary to the defendant’s arguments, the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Smith, J.) properly denied his motion to suppress. Assuming that the portion of the driveway on which the police officer entered was part of the curtilage, the police officer did not exceed the “implied invitation” to use it when he entered on legitimate police business. See State v. Cloutier, 544 A.2d 1277, 1279 (Me.1988). The police officer was pursuing his investigation of the defendant, see State v. Rand, 430 A.2d 808, 819 (Me.1981), even though he chose to disguise his real purpose by engaging the defendant in conversation about another matter. Combined with other information, the odor of marijuana apparent to the police officer from that location provided a substantial basis for the magistrate to find probable cause to issue a search warrant. See State v. Lutz, 553 A.2d 657, 659 (Me.1989). Finally, we find sufficient evidence from which the trier of fact could rationally find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged, see State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985), and therefore affirm the judgment of the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Beaulieu, J.).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 A.2d 1206, 1990 Me. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-townsend-me-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack