State of Maine v. Richard K. Ntim Jr.
76 A.3d 370
Me.2013Background
- On Sept. 30, 2011, Maine State Police Commercial Vehicle Unit conducted a planned safety inspection of a Greyhound bus during a scheduled 15–20 minute stop in Portland; passengers were asked to exit so restrooms and interior could be inspected.
- A State Police drug dog (Angel) alerted twice on luggage at Ntim’s seat; Lieutenant Currie searched the bag on the bus and found only plant residue.
- DEA agents, working at the terminal as part of a multi‑agency operation, engaged Ntim in a consensual conversation after seeing him appear nervous and after a database check showed his name in a drug investigation index.
- The dog handler (Sergeant Bergquist) later approached Ntim in the terminal with Angel; Ntim consented to the dog sniff, Angel alerted on Ntim, and Ntim then consented to a search of his person in a restroom; ~3 ounces of cocaine were recovered.
- Ntim moved to suppress; the trial court denied suppression, finding the passengers’ removal for inspection lawful, Ntim’s consents voluntary, and the dog’s second alert provided probable cause to search. Ntim conditionally pleaded guilty and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Ntim's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of the bus inspection and use of a drug dog during an administrative inspection | Inspection exceeded Fourth Amendment limits for administrative safety inspections (pretext for drug interdiction) | Inspection was a legitimate safety inspection; presence/use of dog not per se unconstitutional | Court assumed (for analysis) the inspection may have violated the Fourth Amendment but did not decide legality on the merits because trial court found no link between bus sweep and terminal events |
| Whether Ntim’s consent to the dog sniff/search was tainted by the bus inspection (fruit of the poisonous tree) | Consent was tainted by prior illegality and should be suppressed | Consent was voluntary and resulted from intervening, lawful activity in the terminal, not from the bus inspection | Consent to the dog sniff was voluntary and sufficiently attenuated from the bus inspection because DEA agents’ consensual interaction provided intervening circumstances; suppression denied |
| Whether the dog’s alert provided probable cause to search Ntim’s person | Dog alerts unreliable or tainted; search therefore unlawful | Dog’s (second) alert on Ntim gave probable cause under current dog‑sniff jurisprudence | Angel’s second alert supplied probable cause to search Ntim’s person; search upheld as lawful |
| Whether police misconduct was sufficiently flagrant to defeat attenuation | The bus inspection and bag search were pretextual and flagrantly abused authority, so attenuation insufficient | Any misconduct was not flagrant and was mitigated by lawful intervening activity; attenuation applies | Court found no flagrant exploitation that overcame attenuation; intervening circumstances and voluntariness weighed against suppression |
Key Cases Cited
- New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987) (standards for constitutionally permissible warrantless administrative inspections)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991) (consensual bus encounters are permissible if a reasonable person would feel free to decline)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (use of a trained drug dog during a lawful traffic stop does not implicate legitimate privacy interests)
- Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013) (dog alerts can establish probable cause if handler and dog reliability are shown)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975) (factors for determining attenuation of the taint of official illegality)
- City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000) (checkpoints/inspections whose primary purpose is ordinary crime control are unconstitutional)
- State v. Boyington, 714 A.2d 141 (Me. 1998) (lawful intervening activity can attenuate taint of prior illegality)
- State v. Trusiani, 854 A.2d 860 (Me. 2004) (application of Brown attenuation factors to physical evidence)