82 A.3d 820
Me.2013Background
- In Apr 2009, Limestone PD investigated burglaries at 257 Long Road and 646 Blake Road, with footprints matching and a dog search tracking between sites.
- Witnesses described a suspicious male operator and a 2002 Dodge Intrepid with plate resembling 2196MD; Johndro owned a matching vehicle and had burglary convictions.
- Mahan prepared an affidavit and proposed warrants for Johndro’s house and car, omitting items seized and failing to tie noncriminal behavior to criminal activity.
- The justice of the peace signed the first warrant and officers seized marijuana, loose change, and a diamond ring; a second warrant for a shed yielded no evidence.
- Five days later a third warrant was issued based on another officer’s observation of a gold wristwatch linked to a Caribou burglary; the third search produced additional evidence.
- Johndro was indicted in Nov 2009; the trial court suppressed all evidence from the three searches, and the State appealed, arguing probable cause and good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for first warrant | Johndro’s car near the scene supported probable cause. | No nexus between noncriminal car observations and the search location. | No substantial basis for probable cause. |
| Good faith exception | Exigent reliance on warrants was objectively reasonable. | Affidavit lacked indicia of probable cause; reliance unreasonable. | Good faith did not apply. |
| Fruit of the poisonous tree | Third warrant independently supported by new observations. | Third warrant relied on evidence obtained illegally in the first search. | Third-search evidence suppressed as fruit of illegality. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crowley, 1998 ME 187 (Me. 1998) (probable cause review limited to four corners of the affidavit)
- State v. Diamond, 628 A.2d 1032 (Me. 1993) (affidavit based on noncriminal behavior may fail probable cause; good faith may fail)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
- Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2004) (warrant must correctly describe items to be searched)
- Segura v. United States, 468 U.S. 796 (U.S. 1984) (exclusionary rule for derivative evidence)