State v. Cote
| Decision Date | 05 December 1986 |
| Citation | 518 A.2d 454 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Stephen A. COTE and George S. Yeaton. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Janet T. Mills (orally), Dist. Atty., South Paris, for the State.
John S. Jenness, Jr. (orally), South Paris, for Cote.
Thomas A. Dyhrberg (orally), Harrison, for Yeaton.
Before NICHOLS, ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, SCOLNIK and CLIFFORD, JJ.
Stephen Cote and George Yeaton appeal from the judgments of the Superior Court, Oxford County, entered on their conditional pleas of guilty, pursuant to M.R.Crim.P. 11(a)(2), of robbery in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 651 (1983). On appeal, they contend the trial court erred in denying their motions to suppress from evidence their statements made to the police and evidence seized from a search of the car impounded by the police at the time of their arrest. We hold the trial court properly denied the motions to suppress, and affirm the judgments.
Cote was the driver of the car in which Yeaton and four other persons were riding when he was stopped by Officer Fearon on the Gray Road in Gorham for travelling 76 miles an hour in a 50 mile an hour speed zone. Neither the registration nor the number plates were issued for that car. Cote advised Fearon that he had just purchased the car in Massachusetts and had taken the plates from another vehicle to get the car to his home in Auburn. Fearon issued Cote a citation for speeding and for illegal attachment of plates, removed and retained the illegally attached plates, and instructed him to have the car towed by nightfall.
Approximately an hour later, Fearon received information that a car bearing the same plate numbers as the Cote car may have been involved in a robbery. Fearon returned to the Cote car which was parked on the side of a public road and had not moved from the site of the stop. Fearon approached the car and read the vehicle identification number (VIN) through the windshield. Fearon radioed the VIN through a computer listing of stolen vehicles. It was reported the car had been stolen from Haverhill, Massachusetts. Although Cote denied the car was stolen and produced a handwritten bill of sale, Fearon placed Cote under arrest for driving a stolen car. Yeaton, with the other occupants of the car, was arrested for riding in a stolen car. Yeaton, Cote and the other occupants were transported to the Gorham police station. The car was impounded and towed to an auto body shop. While in the custody of the police, both Cote and Yeaton made statements implicating them in a robbery that had occurred in the area. With the consent of the owner, Fearon and another officer searched the impounded car and found a bandana that linked Cote and Yeaton to the robbery.
Cote and Yeaton assert the VIN to the car was obtained by Officer Fearon in violation of the fourth amendment 1 and that their statements given to the police and the bandana found in the car were fruits of the poisonous tree and should have been suppressed from evidence. Yeaton further asserts Fearon had no probable cause to arrest him as a person knowingly riding in a stolen vehicle.
When Fearon returned to the Cote car, it was parked on the side of a public road at the site of the stop. His return did not constitute a second stop. The VIN was in plain view from the outside of the car. It is well established that a police officer may glance into an automobile parked on a public way and observe things that are in plain view inside the car without invoking the constitutional protections guaranteed by the fourth amendment. See Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 589-91, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 2468-69, 41 L.Ed.2d 325 (1974) (); State v. Harriman, 467 A.2d 745, 748-750 (Me.1983) .
The United States Supreme Court recently held in New York v. Class, 475 U.S. 106, 106 S.Ct. 960, 89 L.Ed.2d 81 (1986), that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a VIN because it is in plain view of someone standing outside the automobile. 106 S.Ct. at 965. The court stated it is "unreasonable to have an expectation of privacy in an object required by law to be located in a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. George
...253 Ga. 382, 320 S.E.2d 371, 372 (1984) (dashboard), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1212, 105 S.Ct. 1183, 84 L.Ed.2d 331 (1985); State v. Cote, 518 A.2d 454, 455-56 (Me.1986); McDonald v. State, 61 Md.App. 461, 487 A.2d 306, 311 (1985); Commonwealth v. Sergeinko, 399 Mass. 291, 503 N.E.2d 1282, 128......
-
State v. Pinkham
...... See State v. . Page 321. Cote, 518 A.2d 454, 456 (Me.1986) (trial court's conclusion on ultimate question of whether stop warranted must stand if any competent evidence in record supports it); State v. Moulton, 481 A.2d 155, 163 (Me.1984) (in addition to facts found, must be assumed trial court found for defendant on all ......
-
State v. Curtis
...erroneous in finding that Curtis waived his right to remain silent and to have counsel present during the interrogation. State v. Cote, 518 A.2d 454, 456 (Me.1986). Curtis also argues that it was error for the Superior Court to deny his motion to suppress because he invoked his right to cou......
-
State v. Navarro
...exists to arrest an individual is determined by the particular facts and circumstances under which the arrest occurred. State v. Cote, 518 A.2d 454, 456 (Me.1986). The court's finding of probable cause will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. State v. Fogg, 410 A.2d 548, 550 The offi......