State v. Bailey
41 A.3d 535
| Me. | 2012Background
- Bailey convicted of ten counts of gross sexual assault and two counts of unlawful sexual contact in Penobscot County and required to register as a sex offender.
- Bailey appealed denial of suppression for live-witness testimony and sought suppression of evidence from a police search.
- This Court previously vacated and remanded in Bailey I to determine whether physical evidence and testimony derived from the initial illegal computer search should be suppressed.
- Detective Beaulieu illegally searched Bailey’s home computer; after discovering child pornography, Bailey gave verbal consent and a written consent form for a home search.
- Seven videotapes were found; one tape showed sexual activity with two young girls; Detective Beaulieu showed headshots to Bailey’s daughter, who identified the victims.
- The trial court suppressed the videotape but allowed the two victims’ live testimony; Bailey contends both should be suppressed as fruits of the illegal search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the videotape after an illegal search | Brown factors show taint; consent did not purge illegality | Consent purged taint; videotape admissible under Brown | Videotape admissible; taint not fatal under Brown analysis |
| Admissibility of live-witness testimony identified by the videotape | Ceccolini factors require exclusion given link to illegality | Ceccolini factors support admission; witnesses voluntarily testified | Live-witness testimony admissible under Ceccolini factors |
| Voluntariness of Bailey’s consent to search | Consent not voluntary; taint from initial illegality | Written consent was voluntary and independent of illegality | Court found Bailey’s consent not voluntary; taint analysis applied to videotape; live testimony treated under Ceccolini |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Illinois, 421 U.S. 590 (Supreme Court 1975) (four Brown factors for taint analysis of post-illegality evidence; voluntariness required)
- Ceccolini v. United States, 435 U.S. 268 (Supreme Court 1978) (deadlinelike Ceccolini factors for live-witness testimony)
- State v. LeGassey, 456 A.2d 366 (Me. 1983) (applied Brown to physical evidence in Maine)
