216 A.3d 22
Me.2019Background
- July 30, 2015: burglary at Tobey’s Grocery; surveillance showed two men and a dark four‑door car (believed a Volkswagen) near the scene.
- Same night: evidence (money bags, clothing, a size‑13 sneaker) found in Cumberland Farms dumpster; surveillance placed a Volkswagen and three men there; Trooper identified Warner as the driver.
- Warner owned a 2003 Volkswagen Passat matching the car seen; Warner had prior burglary‑related convictions; one codefendant later identified as Taylor Shultz.
- Sept. 9, 2015: warrant (Judge Dow) issued for AT&T records for Warner’s phone number (texts, voicemails, call logs, “PING” location data) for July 30–Sept. 9, 2015.
- Sept. 14, 2015: warrant (Justice Mills) issued for Verizon records for Shultz’s phone; affidavit for Shultz largely mirrored Warner’s and included material obtained from Warner’s records.
- Superior Court suppressed evidence from both warrants, finding no nexus showing cell‑phone records would contain particularized evidence; State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Warner's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavit for Sept. 9 warrant established probable cause to search Warner’s account data | Affidavit, viewed with deference, provided a substantial basis to infer cell‑phone records would contain evidence (coordination, location, communications) | Affidavit failed to connect the phone records to evidence of the burglary; no explicit explanation why phone data would be evidentiary | Warrant for Warner's data was supported by probable cause; issuing judge had substantial basis to issue it |
| Whether Warner had standing to challenge Sept. 14 warrant for Shultz’s data | State: Warner lacked standing to challenge search of another’s account | Warner: information obtained from his own (illegal) account search tainted the affidavit for Shultz, giving him standing | Warner lacked standing because Warner’s search was lawful; suppression of Shultz warrant was vacated |
| Whether courts should apply Franks hearing for alleged false statements in affidavits | State: affidavits were truthful and magistrates’ probable‑cause findings should be sustained | Warner: requested Franks hearing claiming deliberate/reckless false statements | Trial court denied Franks claims; appellate decision did not disturb that finding |
| Whether good‑faith exception applies to facially deficient warrants | State argued deference to issuing judge and good‑faith exception where applicable | Warner argued warrants were facially deficient so exclusion appropriate | Because Sept. 9 warrant was valid, suppression reversed; standing lacking for Sept. 14 so suppression reversed; court did not need to decide broader good‑faith issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality‑of‑circumstances test and deference to magistrate’s probable‑cause finding)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell phones hold vast, sensitive personal information)
- State v. Nunez, 153 A.3d 84 (Me. 2016) (review limited to four corners of affidavit; magistrate deference)
- State v. Gurney, 36 A.3d 893 (Me. 2012) (requirement that affidavit show nexus between place to be searched and evidence)
- State v. Johndro, 82 A.3d 820 (Me. 2013) (fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree exclusion for evidence obtained through prior illegality)