State v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 02 January 1969
• Citation: State v. Chapman, 250 A.2d 203 (Me. 1969)
• Parties: STATE of Maine v. Millard S. CHAPMAN.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 203

250 A.2d 203

STATE of Maine v.Millard S. CHAPMAN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 2, 1969.

David Aldrich, County Atty., South Paris, Daniel G. Lilley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Augusta, for plaintiff.

McCarthy, Beliveau & Beliveau, by Albert J. Beliveau, Jr., William E. McCarthy, Rumford, for defendant.

Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, MARDEN, DUFRESNE and WEATHERBEE, JJ.

WEBBER, Justice.

Pursuant to M.R.Crim.P., Rule 37A(b) and 15 M.R.S.A, Sec. 2115-A there is reported for our determination an interlocutory order suppressing evidence prior to trial, from which order the State has appealed.

The following issues are framed for decision here:

'1.Whether or not the items taken by law enforcement officials were abandoned property at law and, therefore, not under the protection of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2.Whether or not the search and seizure was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution on the particular facts of this case.

(a) Whether failure of law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant while processing a murder scene is violative of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution?

(b) Whether the law enforcement officials could have satisfied requirements of the specificity clause of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution had they tried to obtain a search warrant?'

The motion to suppress, as amended, concerned an empty whiskey bottle with coagulated blood and hair adhering to the bottom; also a pair of women's shoes.Whether or not a search without warrant is reasonable depends upon the facts of each case.In the instant case the facts are not in dispute.

On November 11, 1967 at about 2:00 A.M. Fred Fortier, a South Paris police officer, responding to a radio call from the office of the Sheriff of Oxford County, went to the home of the defendant.In answer to his knock, the defendant opened the door and said, 'Good morning, Fred.Come on in.'The defendant and the officer were well acquainted.The defendant then walked into his living room and sat down, saying, 'I guess she is gone, Fred.'The officer then observed Mrs. Chapman 'slumped over in a chair' in that portion of the room used as a 'dinette.'There was blood over her face, hands and clothing.The officer picked up Mrs. Chapman's left arm and found it cold and stiff.He then went to the telephone and called Deputy Arsenault, desk officer in the Sheriff's office.In about fifteen minutes Dr. Dixon, the medical examiner, arrived.During this interval the defendant spontaneously volunteered the information that 'she fell down' and that 'she hemorrhaged.'He did not state where, how or why she'fell' and was not questioned.At about 2:35 A.M. the County Attorney, the Sheriff and one or more deputy sheriffs arrived.The County Attorney, who had also known the defendant for several years, exchanged greetings with him and then asked, 'Do you mind if we look around a little bit?'-to which the defendant responded, 'No, not at all.Go right ahead.'The officials observed the body of Mrs. Chapman and the presence of quantities of blood in the hallway, both bedrooms, the living room and kitchen.They observed a pair of women's shoes on the living room floor and a pair of trousers in the corner of the bedroom.A photographer arrived and took some interior pictures for the State.At about 3:00 A.M. the defendant was taken into custody and transported by the Sheriff to his office.No formal charge was lodged against him at that time.The other officials continued their investigation of the premises.Lieutenant Jordan of the Maine State Police, a criminal investigator and photographer was called at his home in Augusta by an officer at State Police headquarters at about 3:00 A.M.At about the same time Detective Greely, also of the Maine State Police, was called at his home in Freeport.Both officers departed promptly for South Paris and arrived at the Chapman home at about 4:30 A.M. where they were admitted by Officer Fortier, then in sole charge of the premises.In the interim at an unstated time the body of the decedent had been removed to a hospital in Rumford for post mortem examination.Jordan and Greely made only a cursory examination of the premises, remaining 20 to 25 minutes.After a brief stop at the Sheriff's office they departed for the Rumford hospital.At about 5:00 A.M. Officer Fortier was relieved by Deputy Sheriff Chamberlain who continued to maintain police access to and control over the premises.The County Attorney and the Sheriff also traveled to Rumford to observe the autopsy.Dr. Haladjien, a pathologist, began the autopsy about 9:00 A.M. Lieutenant Jordan took photographs during the course of the examination.The doctor found a deep laceration at the bridge of the nose and a fracture in that area.He found multiple bruises about the face and in the region of the left eye.He was able to determine that the decedent had died lying on her back and that the cause of death was hemorrhagic shock.He concluded that she had suffered a severe trauma at the bridge of the nose which could have been caused by a blunt or a sharp instrument, a fist or even by a fall upon a sharp object or upon the floor.After the completion of the autopsy, the officials stopped briefly for coffee and then returned to South Paris.All four returned to the Chapman home where they were admitted by Deputy Sheriff Chamberlain.They arrived at about noon.They then began a more thorough investigation of the premises.On his first visit Lieutenant Jordan had observed the trousers, above referred to, in the bedroom and had discovered that they contained fecal matter.On his second visit his attention was called to a spot on the inside of the door frame leading to the cellar which appeared to be blood.This officer then proceeded through this door and down the cellar stairs.Here he found a trace of what appeared to be fecal matter on the door frame leading to the basement garage.He then entered the garage.There he observed three trash cans with covers.In the center can, after removing part of the paper, cans and trash which it contained, he found an empty 'Four Roses' whiskey bottle upside down.Noting that the bottle showed evidences of coagulated blood and hair on its bottom, he first caused it to be photographed in its then position, after which he removed it and placed it in the possession of Detective Greely at 12:45 P.M.It was subsequently locked in the evidence closet at State Police headquarters in Augusta.Either on that occasion or on a subsequent visit two days later Lieutenant Greely removed the pair of shoes which were on the living room floor.The defendant was subsequently charged with murder.No search warrant was ever sought for or obtained by the police.

On Monday, November 13, 1967 Lieut.Greely returned to the premises by arrangement made by the County Attorney and the defendant's attorney for the purpose of making measurements and diagrams of the rooms.As already noted, it may have been either on this occasion or no November 11th that he took possession of the shoes.

Two controlling facts emerge in this recitation.The first entry of Officer Fortier was a lawful entry by the express consent and invitation of the defendant.From that time until about 12:45 P.M. on November 11, 1967 when the police investigation of the premises was terminated, the police never abandoned their possession and control of the premises.

At the outset we can briefly dispose of the matter of the shoes removed by Lieut.Greely.Given the lawfulness of the original entry, we need only consider that the shoes were plainly visible on the living room floor.Their discovery was not the product of a search.As material evidence they were properly subject to removal by the State.It matters not, therefore, whether they were removed on November 11, 1967 during the investigation or on November 13, 1967 when Lieut.Greely was again on the premises by consent of the defendant given by his attorney.'It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be introduced in evidence.'Harris v. United States(1968)390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 993, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067.

The discovery of the bottle, however, was the product of a search and the issue is then whether or not that search was reasonable under all of the existing circumstances.The test was stated in United States v. Rabinowitz(1950)339 U.S. 56, 70 S.Ct. 430, 435, 94 L.Ed. 653 wherein the Court said: 'The mandate of the Fourth Amendment is that the people shall be secure against unreasonable searches.* * * The relevant test is not whether it is reasonable to procure a search warrant, but whether the search was reasonable.That criterion in turn depends upon the facts and circumstances-the total atmosphere of the case.'

Our own research and that of learned counsel for both the State and the defendant have revealed the paucity of opinion with respect to the right of police officials to conduct an investigation on the premises where an apparently violent death has occurred and a homicide or other serious crime may have been committed, and to which premises the police have gained lawful entry without warrant.

In Stevens v. State(Alaska1968)443 P.2d 600, 602, 603 the police were called to the defendant's home in which decedent had been shot and killed.The local Chief of Police first responding to the call in the early morning hours was admitted by defendant's wife.The Court posited the lawfulness of his entry, not upon consent, but upon the reasonable belief of the officer that an emergency existed.The officer next arrested the defendant'to prevent him from taking his own life, as he was threatening to do,' and left the premises to place the defendant in custody.He then returned with the...