State v. Cooper
Decision Date | 10 January 2017 |
Docket Number | Docket: Lin–16–136 |
Citation | 153 A.3d 759 |
Parties | STATE of Maine v. Allen J. COOPER |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
153 A.3d 759
STATE of Maine
v.
Allen J. COOPER
Docket: Lin–16–136
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Argued: December 13, 2016
Decided: January 10, 2017
Justin W. Andrus, Esq. (orally), and Andrei R. Maciag, Esq., Andrus Law, LLC, Brunswick, for appellant Allen J. Cooper
Janet T. Mills, Attorney General, and Johnathan G. Nathans, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.
MEAD, J.
[153 A.3d 760
appeal Cooper's contention that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of drugs that he was carrying in a body cavity because law enforcement officers exceeded the authority granted them by two search warrants. We discern no error and affirm the judgment.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE
[¶ 3] On December 29, 2014, a District Court judge issued a warrant authorizing law enforcement officers to search Cooper, his motel room in Wiscasset, and his rental car for scheduled drugs. Probable cause for the search was based on an affidavit executed by Maine Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent Scott Quintero describing the MDEA's lengthy investigation of Cooper to that point. Although Cooper unsuccessfully challenged the probable cause finding in the trial court, he has not maintained that challenge on appeal, nor would it have been fruitful for him to do so. See State v. Kimball , 2015 ME 67, ¶ 17 n.4, 117 A.3d 585 (stating that an issue not briefed is waived, subject only to obvious error review).
[¶ 4] Quintero and the officers working with him decided to execute the search warrant at a time when Cooper was away from his motel room and outside of his vehicle. Quintero explained at the suppression hearing that that procedure minimized the danger to both officers performing the search, and to other drivers because there would then be less chance of a high-speed chase. At about 4:00 p.m. on December 29, Quintero made contact with Cooper after Cooper and his companion stopped at a convenience store in Newcastle. As Quintero described it in his testimony at the motion hearing, "Mr. Cooper was removed from the vehicle by me, and he was handcuffed, and then we just did a pat down of his clothing at that point to look for weapons, and none were found. And then he was taken into my vehicle, he sat in the front seat, and I sat with him." Quintero said that because people involved in trafficking often conceal drugs in areas "that a police officer would be uncomfortable reaching, [and] cannot easily access ... in a public place," the store was not an appropriate location to do the full search of Cooper's person authorized by the warrant.
[¶ 5] Following an approximately twenty-minute conversation in Quintero's car, during which Cooper made no admissions, Cooper was taken to the Wiscasset motel where he was staying, about twelve minutes away. He was kept outside while a search of his second-floor room, lasting from 4:20 to 5:00 p.m., was underway; officers discovered what they described as a "piece" of Suboxone that Cooper's companion claimed was hers. A dog certified to
[153 A.3d 761
detect narcotics was requested from the Bath Police Department; the dog alerted on Cooper's anal area and the back seat of his car.
[¶ 7] Cooper was indicted for unlawful trafficking in schedule W drugs (Class B), 17–A M.R.S. § 1103(1–A)(A) (2016) ; unlawful possession of schedule W drugs (Class C), 17–A M.R.S. § 1107–A(1)(B)(4) ; and trafficking in prison contraband (Class C), 17–A M.R.S. § 757(1)(B) (2016). He moved to suppress evidence of the drugs on the grounds that (1) the first search warrant for his person and car was not supported by probable cause, (2) he was subjected to an illegal de facto arrest, (3) the CT scan was an unreasonable search, and (4) his production of the pills and his statement were involuntary. The court held a testimonial hearing and denied the motion.
[¶ 8] Cooper entered a conditional guilty plea to the charge of unlawful possession of schedule W drugs pursuant to M.R.U. Crim. P. 11(a)(2), preserving his right to appeal from the denial of his motion to suppress, and the State dismissed the remaining counts. The court entered judgment and sentenced him to eighteen months' imprisonment, stayed pending appeal, and a $400 fine. Cooper filed a timely notice of appeal.
II. DISCUSSION
[¶ 9] "When reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, we review the findings of fact by the trial court for clear error and review its conclusions of law de novo. We will uphold the denial of a motion to suppress if any reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court's decision." State v. Gerry , 2016 ME 163...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McNaughton
...of a motion to suppress if any reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court's decision." State v. Cooper , 2017 ME 4, ¶ 9, 153 A.3d 759 (quotation marks omitted).1. Right to Remain Silent [¶ 29] The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination provides a suspect with a r......
-
State v. Croteau
...of fact. The findings are supported by competent evidence admitted at the suppression hearing. See State v. Cooper , 2017 ME 4, ¶¶ 2, 9, 153 A.3d 759.[¶3] Brent Croteau was driving southbound on Interstate 95 near Carmel on the evening of February 14, 2020. His vehicle left the highway and ......
-
State v. Pagnani
...judgment to determine if the evidence rationally supports the trial court's decision."); see also State v. Cooper , 2017 ME 4, ¶ 2, 153 A.3d 759 ("A finding of fact supporting a suppression order will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous, that is, lacking any competent eviden......
-
State v. Marquis
...inferences that may be drawn from the evidence, in the light most favorable to the motion court's order. State v. Cooper , 2017 ME 4, ¶ 2, 153 A.3d 759. We will uphold the court's denial of a motion to suppress if any reasonable view of the evidence supports the court's decision. State v. L......