State of Maine v. Daniel A. Fox, 157 A.3d 778

On Feb. 11, 2015, Bangor police found Daniel Fox unconscious in a running rental car; he was the sole occupant and his license was suspended.
An officer awakened Fox, observed cash on his lap and a pharmacy bag on the passenger seat; Fox initially gave a false name and then identified himself.
The officer arrested Fox for operating after suspension and providing a false name, determined Fox had no authority over the rental car, and decided to impound and inventory the vehicle.
During the inventory search the officer seized $543, drug paraphernalia, and 99 packets of heroin hidden under Fox’s cap.
Fox moved to suppress the evidence based on alleged noncompliance with the department’s inventory policy; he was convicted of heroin trafficking and possession and the $543 was forfeited.
On appeal Fox challenged denial of suppression, exclusion of double-hearsay, denial of his motion to reopen to call a witness, sufficiency of evidence for forfeiture, and lack of explicit forfeiture findings. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of inventory search	Inventory search valid as community-caretaking and per statute	Officer failed to follow department policy (didn’t attempt less invasive options) so search invalid	Search upheld: alternatives weren’t available (Fox incompetent, no authority over rental); impound and inventory proper
Exclusion of double-hearsay (unidentified customer → store employee → officer)	Evidence not hearsay; offered to show inadequate investigation, not for truth	Statement was double hearsay and prejudicial; should be excluded	Exclusion affirmed: hearsay and, alternatively, Rule 403 exclusion for prejudice/confusion
Motion to reopen to call renter (Lam) after resting	Needed to call Lam to implicate Lam and rebut State; reopening appropriate	Request came too late and testimony uncertain; potential delay and complications	Denial affirmed: trial court didn’t abuse discretion given timing, uncertainty, and delay
Criminal forfeiture of $543	Forfeiture unsupported: insufficient proof money was proceeds/intended for drug transaction; court made no specific findings	Cash was close to defendant and drugs; other circumstantial evidence linked money to drug activity	Forfeiture affirmed: inferred findings available on record and evidence supported forfeiture by preponderance

South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (1976) (standardized inventory of lawfully impounded vehicle is constitutionally permissible under community-caretaking)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (police may exercise discretion in inventories if based on standardized criteria, not investigatory motive)
State v. Bickford, 582 A.2d 250 (Me. 1990) (inventory search permissible for community-caretaking; no duty to offer alternatives when defendant unable to arrange custody)
State v. Hudson, 390 A.2d 509 (Me. 1978) (conformity to standard practice is essential for inventories)
State v. Pierce, 899 A.2d 801 (Me. 2006) (forfeiture statute not limited to money traceable to a particular transaction)