145 A.3d 555
Me.2016Background
- On Nov. 26, 2013, a Maine State Police trooper (also MDEA-CDLET certified) learned from a dispatcher and hunting-camp owner that the Carton brothers might be manufacturing methamphetamine at the owner’s one-room hunting camp. The owner gave the trooper permission to search the camp.
- The uniformed trooper entered the camp with the owner; the Cartons asked what he was doing and he said he was there to “look around.” Neither brother objected to the search.
- The trooper observed a plastic bottle with off‑white liquid, a backpack with drain cleaner, and muriatic acid — indicia of a “one pot” methamphetamine system. He did not observe tubing, tin foil, or detect the characteristic pungent odor of an active gassing generator.
- The trooper arrested and handcuffed the brothers. Before giving Miranda warnings, he asked Kevin where the gassing generator was; Kevin answered that it was broken and outside the camp.
- A search warrant for the camp was obtained the next day. The Cartons moved to suppress: (1) evidence from the owner‑consented, warrantless search; (2) Kevin’s pre‑Miranda statement; and (3) evidence from the warrant based on an alleged misstatement in the affidavit. The trial court denied suppression; the Cartons entered conditional guilty pleas and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Cartons' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless search despite owner consent | Cartons: as overnight guests they had a reasonable expectation of privacy and should have been allowed to object before a search | State: owner had common authority; neither Carton objected when search began | Search valid — owner’s consent sufficed and neither brother objected, so search was lawful |
| Admissibility of Kevin’s pre‑Miranda statement | Cartons: Kevin was in custody and un‑warned; statement inadmissible | State: question fell within Miranda public‑safety exception due to risk from gassing generator | Admissible — public‑safety exception applied; officer had probable cause to fear danger and asked to locate the generator |
| Validity of subsequent search warrant despite alleged affidavit error | Cartons: affidavit misstated observing Micah “cooking meth” vs. “cooking supper,” undermining magistrate’s probable cause finding | State: error was conceded but remaining affidavit facts supported a fair probability of evidence being present | Warrant valid — totality of circumstances supported magistrate’s finding of probable cause |
| Need to affirmatively seek consent from present co‑occupants | Cartons: officer should have sought the guests’ consent or opportunity to object | State: Randolph does not require police to ask potentially objecting co‑tenants for consent when another occupant consents and no objection is voiced | No duty to affirmatively seek consent; absence of objection and owner consent allowed the search |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984) (public‑safety exception to Miranda can justify pre‑warning questioning)
- Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) (present co‑occupant’s express refusal bars search despite another occupant’s consent)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third party with common authority can consent to search)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (1990) (overnight guest has a reasonable expectation of privacy in host’s home)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) ( Fourth Amendment protection requires a legitimate expectation of privacy)
- State v. Bilynsky, 932 A.2d 1169 (Me. 2007) (questions about gassing generators and meth‑production equipment fit public‑safety/protective‑sweep exceptions)