143 A.3d 819
Me.2016Background
- Two incendiary structure fires occurred in Friendship, Maine in June 2012: one on June 10 (on property of James Simmons) and one on June 21 (on property of Donald Simmons).
- Investigator MacMaster applied for and obtained warrants for cellular records for James Simmons, Donald Simmons, James’s wife, and Frederick Campbell; the affidavits were substantially identical across applications.
- Relevant facts: an ongoing hostile fishing feud between James and Donald Simmons; James accused Donald of the June 10 fire; Donald suspected James and Campbell of the June 21 fire.
- Witnesses: Donald’s sternman reported seeing a truck he believed to be James’s speeding away from Donald’s property ~8:30 p.m. on June 21; James’s wife said James and his truck were at home that evening; another witness placed Campbell leaving a friend’s home and not returning.
- Warrants sought broad categories of cell‑carrier records (including historical cell site location records). Trial court suppressed all cellular records, finding the affidavits failed to establish probable cause. The State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were warrants supported by probable cause to seize historical cell‑site location data? | Affidavits provided nexus and probable cause that records would show whereabouts and communications relevant to June 21 arson. | Affidavits lacked sufficient incriminating facts tying defendants to the June 21 fire or showing records would contain evidence of crime. | For James Simmons: yes as to historical cell‑site data for June 21; other records and June 10 data suppressed. For Campbell: no; all cellular records suppressed. |
| Could a valid portion of an overbroad warrant be severed and used? | The valid, particularized portion (June 21 historical cell‑site data) is severable and admissible. | Overbreadth required suppression of all seized records; severance not appropriate. | Severance permitted; historical cell‑site data for James on June 21 may be used; other warrant portions suppressed. |
| Did affidavits establish probable cause linking Campbell to June 21 fire? | (Implicit) Employment with James and absence from friend’s house were sufficient for records to be relevant. | Facts are too meager and noncriminal; no allegations that color noncriminal activity. | No probable cause for Campbell; suppression proper. |
| Standard of review/application (probable cause vs. lesser SCA standard) | State argued warrant review should allow lower showing (not preserved below). | Defendants relied on probable‑cause analysis. | Court reviewed probable cause (issue not preserved); State had chosen probable‑cause warrant route. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Johndro, 82 A.3d 820 (Me. 2013) (standard for magistrate probable‑cause determination; four‑corners review with reasonable inferences)
- State v. Gurney, 36 A.3d 893 (Me. 2012) (nexus required between place to be searched and evidence sought; nexus may be inferred from type of crime and items sought)
- State v. Diamond, 628 A.2d 1032 (Me. 1993) (noncriminal activity in affidavit must be "colored" by allegations of criminal conduct to support probable cause)
- In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data, 724 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2013) (explains cell‑site technology and holdings that historical cell‑site business records reveal general location)
- United States v. Graham, 846 F. Supp. 2d 384 (D. Md. 2012) (historical cell‑site data reveal only general vicinity; discusses SCA and Fourth Amendment implications)
- State v. Cote, 118 A.3d 805 (Me. 2015) (legal conclusions reviewed de novo; framework for appellate review of suppression rulings)