State of Maine v. Mark W. Strong Sr., 60 A.3d 1286

Strong was charged in a 59-count indictment with promotion of prostitution, conspiracy to commit promotion of prostitution, 45 counts of violation of privacy, and conspiracy to commit a violation of privacy in Maine.
The privacy counts alleged, in nearly identical language, that Strong installed or used a device to observe or record in a private place without consent, on multiple locations tied to a prostitute’s business.
Strong moved to dismiss the 46 privacy counts under Rule 12(b)(2) on January 22, 2013, arguing victims were not entitled to privacy if they engaged in criminal activity at the time.
The trial court granted the motion to dismiss the privacy counts after an offer of proof showing victims’ presence at locations connected to prostitution for the purpose of engaging a prostitute.
The State sought interlocutory appeal under 15 M.R.S. § 2115-A(1) and related rules; the State later challenged timeliness, and the court proceeded to the merits of the dismissal.
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court upheld the dismissal, holding the privacy counts failed to charge an offense under 17-A M.R.S. § 511(1)(B) as augmented by the State’s offer of proof, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether privacy counts adequately charged offense under 511(1)(B).	Strong argues counts fail because victims were not entitled to privacy while engaging in prostitution.	State contends statute protects privacy rights of victims regardless of illegal activity.	Counts dismissed; indictment inadequate under 511(1)(B).
Whether the State's motion to dismiss was timely or preserved for appeal.	State contends timely objection preserved appeal.	Timeliness objection not raised promptly; not preserved.	Timeliness objection not preserved; merits addressed anyway.
Whether interlocutory appeal jurisdiction supports review of the dismissal.	State seeks appellate relief on pretrial dismissal.	Court properly exercised interlocutory review given potential impact on prosecution.	Interlocutory appeal jurisdiction warranted; merits affirmed.

State v. Drown, 447 A.2d 466 (Me. 1982) (standard for appellate review of pretrial rulings; significant setback to prosecution check)
State v. Brackett, 754 A.2d 337 (Me. 2000) (factors for interlocutory review in pretrial context)
State v. Storer, 583 A.2d 1016 (Me. 1990) (indictment sufficiency review: must state offense on face of indictment)
State v. Paradis, 10 A.3d 695 (Me. 2010) (statutory interpretation and ambiguity; de novo review)
State v. Jones, 46 A.3d 1125 (Me. 2012) (de novo review of statutory language)
United States v. Yakou, 428 F.3d 241 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (narrow exception for unusual budget of facts in legal question)
State v. Filion, 966 A.2d 405 (Me. 2009) (Fourth Amendment considerations not controlling in privacy statute)