153 A.3d 759
Me.2017Background
- On Dec. 29, 2014, police obtained a District Court warrant to search Allen J. Cooper, his motel room, and his rental car for schedule W drugs based on an MDEA affidavit.
- Officers detained and handcuffed Cooper at a convenience store, conducted a pat-down for weapons, then sat with him in an agent’s vehicle for ~20 minutes.
- Cooper was transported (~12 minutes) to his motel while officers executed the room search; a narcotics-detection dog later alerted on Cooper’s anal area and the back seat of his car.
- Cooper was taken to the regional jail for a strip search; during the search he attempted to push his hand into his rectum, prompting an affidavit and a second warrant authorizing CT imaging and a cavity search.
- A CT scan showed a bag of pills in his rectum; Cooper produced a bag with ninety 30 mg oxycodone pills and was indicted; he pleaded conditional guilty to unlawful possession, preserving his suppression claim.
Issues
| Issue | Cooper's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers exceeded the original warrant by detaining and transporting Cooper from the convenience store to the motel, creating a de facto arrest requiring suppression | Continued detention and transport beyond the initial pat-down were unlawful seizures not authorized by the warrant | Warrant to search Cooper’s person implicitly authorized detention for a reasonable period and movement to a secure location to complete the authorized search | Denial of suppression affirmed: detention and transport were reasonable continuations of the person-search authorized by the first warrant |
| Whether subsequent searches (dog sniff, strip search) required separate probable cause or justification | Each intrusive step required independent justification; prior benign pat-down could not justify escalation | Those steps were part of a single, ongoing search authorized by the warrant; incremental escalation (dog, strip) was reasonable and consistent with policy | Dog sniff and strip search were lawful as part of the warrant-authorized search |
| Whether the CT scan and potential cavity search were unreasonable without explicit authorization in the first warrant | CT scan/cavity search were highly intrusive and required explicit prior authorization; the first warrant did not clearly authorize such intrusions | Police obtained a second warrant explicitly authorizing imaging and cavity search; even if first warrant were ambiguous, the second satisfied Fourth Amendment requirements | CT scan and resultant cavity search were authorized by the second warrant and thus reasonable |
| Whether Cooper’s statement and production of pills were involuntary due to preceding illegality | Evidence and statement were fruits of unlawful detention/search and should be suppressed | Because searches and detention were lawful (warrants supported actions), the statement and production were admissible | Statement and production upheld as admissible evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Watts, 126 A.3d 1216 (N.J. 2015) (warrant to search person may permit transporting detainee to a secure location to complete the search)
- Massachusetts v. Upton, 466 U.S. 727 (1984) (search incident to a warrant is less intrusive when conducted under a warrant)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (2016) (reasonableness is the touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 (2013) (limits on detentions incident to execution of warrants when only premises are authorized)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (a seizure justified by a traffic stop becomes unlawful if prolonged beyond mission without reasonable suspicion)