State v. Reynoso-Hernandez, Oxf-02-172.

• Citation: 816 A.2d 826,2003 ME 19
• Decision Date: 20 February 2003
• Docket Number: No. Oxf-02-172.,Oxf-02-172.
• Parties: STATE of Maine v. Miguel Santiago REYNOSO-HERNANDEZ.
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)

816 A.2d 826

2003 ME 19

STATE of Maine v. Miguel Santiago REYNOSO-HERNANDEZ.

No. Oxf-02-172.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: September 11, 2002.

Decided: February 20, 2003.

G. Steven Rowe, Attorney General, James M. Cameron, Asst. Attorney General (orally), David N. Fisher, Asst. Attorney General, Augusta, for State.

Sarah L. Glynn, Esq. (orally), David Q. Whittier, P.A., South Paris, for defendant.

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, ALEXANDER, CALKINS, and LEVY, JJ.

SAUFLEY, C.J.

[¶ 1] Miguel Santiago Reynoso-Hernandez appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court (Oxford County, Warren, J.), entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1103(1), (2)(A) (1983 & Supp.2002), marijuana cultivation, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1117(1), (2)(D) (Supp. 2002), and two counts of violating conditions of release, 15 M.R.S.A. § 1092 (Supp.2002). He was acquitted of unsworn falsification, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 453(1)(C) (1983). Reynoso contends that the Superior Court (Gorman, J.) improperly denied his motion to suppress evidence based on an illegally executed warrant.¹ We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶ 2] Based on a confidential informant's controlled buy of cocaine from Miguel Santiago Reynoso-Hernandez at Reynoso's home, the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency secured a warrant to search Reynoso's home. The warrant was executed at 8:45 P.M. Between three and five law enforcement vehicles with their lights on pulled into Reynoso's driveway. The lead drug enforcement agent parked his car so that the headlights were directly shining on the primary entrance to the home, a locked door that entered into the garage. That door was the same door that the confidential informant, an acquaintance of Reynoso, had entered during the controlled buy.

[¶ 3] Upon approaching the door, Agent Tony Milligan yelled that the "drug enforcement" or "police" were at the door. He also announced, "search warrant" and "open the door." Upon waiting five to ten seconds and receiving no response, Agent Milligan instructed another officer to forcibly enter the garage.

[¶ 4] The officers entered the garage and encountered another locked door into the main residence. An officer banged and kicked on the inside door and announced "Open the door. Police. Search warrant. Open the door." From behind the door, Reynoso kept repeating, "Wait a minute. Just a minute. Just a minute." After waiting another ten seconds at the second door, Agent Milligan instructed an officer to forcibly enter the home. Upon entry, they found Reynoso within fifteen feet of the second door. During the search of Reynoso's home, the officers found cocaine, a marijuana plant, and various drug paraphernalia.

[¶ 5] Reynoso filed a motion to suppress alleging, inter alia, that the warrant's execution did not comply with "knock and announce" standards. After hearing testimony from Agent Milligan at the suppression hearing, the motion court held that the officers had followed proper "knock and announce" standards by clearly announcing their presence and then waiting a sufficient time period before entering the residence. The case proceeded to trial and the jury returned a guilty verdict on four of the five charges. This appeal followed.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Burden of Proof and Standard of Review

[¶ 6] We must determine whether the Superior Court erred when it concluded that the officers' execution of the search warrant complied with the "knock and announce" principles of the Fourth Amendment.² As in this case, when a defendant moves to suppress evidence alleging that the State has exceeded its authority pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, the burden of articulating facts sufficient to demonstrate the possible illegality of the search or seizure rests with the defendant. State v. Desjardins, 401 A.2d 165, 169 (Me.1979) ("[T]he suppression movant must articulate in his motion with sufficient particularity the specific reason on which he bases his claim that the seizure without warrant was illegal ....").

[¶ 7] Once a defendant satisfies the burden of going forward, the responsibility for the burden of persuasion depends upon the specific nature of the challenge to the search or seizure. See, e.g., Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-56, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978)

(holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged); State v. Rand, 430 A.2d 808, 817 (Me.1981) (holding that the burden is on the State to establish exception justifying warrantless search).

[¶ 8] Because the burden of persuasion, that is, the burden of proof, depends on the nature of the defendant's challenge, it is incumbent on the defendant to identify with specificity the exact document or conduct challenged in any motion to suppress. Absent that specificity, the motion court will be hampered in its ability to assign a burden of proof and apply the law accordingly. [¶ 9] Reynoso's motion presented factual details regarding the execution of the search and explicitly challenged the "knock and announce" procedure used by law enforcement. When a defendant challenges the execution of an otherwise valid warrant pursuant to the "knock and announce" principles of the Fourth Amendment, the burden is on the State to show the reasonableness of the execution of the warrant.³See United States v. Holmes, 175 F.Supp.2d 62, 73-76 (D.Me.2001),

aff'd after reconsideration, 183 F.Supp.2d 108 (D.Me.2002).

[¶ 10] We turn then to the appropriate standard of review. In Fourth Amendment appeals, the proper standard of appellate review depends upon the challenges raised by the appellant. This variation in standards results from the motion court's obligation to resolve constitutional issues in two steps. First, the motion court must find the facts of the event at issue, referred to as the "historical facts." State v. Cefalo, 396 A.2d 233, 239 (Me.1979) (citing Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 506, 73 S.Ct. 397, 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953)) ("`historical facts' [are] facts `in the sense of a recital of external events and the credibility of their narrators.'"). Second, from these facts, the motion court must draw legal conclusions. Cefalo, 396 A.2d at 239. Because the motion court has had the opportunity to hear the witnesses and assess their credibility, we afford the motion court's findings concerning historical facts considerable deference. Id. Thus, we review the factual findings of the motion court to determine whether those findings are supported by the record and only if the findings are clearly erroneous will they be set aside. See State v. Anderson, 1999 ME 18, ¶ 6, 724 A.2d 1231, 1233

.

[¶ 11] In contrast, a challenge to the application of those facts to constitutional protections is a matter of law that we review de novo. State v. Ullring, 1999 ME 183, ¶ 8, 741 A.2d 1065, 1067. In those instances, we are in the same position as the motion court to determine whether an application of the facts to the applicable law warrants a particular legal conclusion. Cefalo, 396 A.2d at 239. Moreover, we "[have] a special responsibility to exercise [our] independent judgment to determine the validity of legal conclusions that are dispositive of a defendant's claim that he has been denied fair treatment in a criminal proceeding." Id.

[¶ 12] Accordingly, a motion court's findings of historical facts on relevant issues will be overturned only when clearly erroneous; however, the legal conclusions drawn from those facts are subject to our independent examination. Id. at 240; see also Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 697-99, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)

(reviewing Fourth Amendment questions de novo while employing the deferential clear error standard to review findings of fact). In this case, the facts are not significantly disputed, and where there is dispute, the court's findings are not clearly erroneous. Thus, we address the court's application of those facts to the law. State v. Dube, 655 A.2d 338, 340 (Me.1995); State v. Cloutier, 544 A.2d 1277, 1280 (Me.1988).

B. Application of Law

[¶ 13] Although it has been less than ten years since the United States Supreme Court specifically announced the incorporation of "knock and announce" concepts in Fourth Amendment analyses, the concept of a "knock and announce" policy first appeared in English common law as early as the thirteenth century. Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 932 n. 2, 115 S.Ct. 1914, 131 L.Ed.2d 976 ("This `knock and announce' principle appears to predate even Semayne's Case, which ... indicates that the doctrine may be traced to a statute enacted in 1275, and that at that time the statute was `but an affirmance of the common law."') (citations omitted). This principle continued to be a rule of law through the founding of the United States and was accepted in many states, applicable to state officers' conduct, through the states' adoption of early common law into their own constitutions and statutes. Id. at 933-34.

[¶ 14] In 1948, Congress enacted a statutory requirement that officers executing a search warrant must "knock and announce" their presence. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3109 (2000). As the United States Supreme Court has indicated, this statutory protection was based on the same common law "knock and announce" principle. Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 313, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2 L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958). Throughout the years between the enactment of section 3109 and the recognition of the constitutional "knock and announce" principle, the federal "knock and announce" statute bound only federal law enforcement officers. United States v. Gatewood, 60 F.3d 248, 249 (6th Cir.1995).

[¶ 15] In 1995, the United States Supreme Court explicitly incorporated the common law "knock and announce" standards into the Fourth Amendment in Wilson, 514 U.S. at 934, 115 S.Ct. 1914. This newly articulated constitutional concept "includes a general presumption that police...