State v. Sargent
| Decision Date | 12 February 2004 |
| Docket Number | PEN CR-03-127 |
| Parties | STATE OF MAINE, Plaintiff v. ROSCOE SARGENT, Defendant |
| Court | Maine Superior Court |
Pending before this Court is the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence. On December 1, 2003, the Court conducted a testimonial hearing in connection with this motion. Andrew B Benson for the State; Joseph M. Pickering and Christopher R Largay for the Defense.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Court makes the following findings of fact. On January 6, 2003 the Defendant was on federal probation and was awaiting trial on pending federal criminal charges. The federal court had previously released him on "conditional pretrial release." The court had appointed Attorney Brett Baber to represent him. At approximately 8:10 a.m. on January 6th, the Defendant accompanied by his attorney, entered the Margaret Chase Smith Federal Building (Federal Building) in Bangor for the sole purpose of surrendering to federal authorities (U.S Marshals) for violating the terms of his federal probation. Upon entering the building, Attorney Baber told a security officer, Kenneth Smart, that his client wanted to surrender to the U.S. Marshall's office and that the Defendant was carrying a knife in his backpack.
The Defendant confirmed the fact that he was carrying a knife in his backpack to Officer Smart. At this point, Officer Smart put the Defendant's backpack through the X-ray machine where he observed the outline of the knife. With the Defendant's permission, Officer Smart opened the backpack, and observed the knife, which appeared to have bloodstains on its five-inch long blade. Officer Smart asked the Defendant to take the knife out and give it to him and the Defendant did so.
The U.S. Marshall's office is located on the third floor of the building, and Officer Smart called John Ready, the third floor court security officer to alert him that the two men were coming upstairs. Mr. Ready came downstairs to escort the two men upstairs. Officer Smart gave the Defendant's knife to Mr. Ready who radioed to his supervisor Robert Hoke (a Supervising Deputy U.S. Marshal) for further instructions.
The Court accepts Mr. Hoke's testimony regarding what transpired at the time of taking the Defendant into custody. Mr. Hoke told Mr. Ready to bring the men upstairs and he met them as they got off the elevator on the third floor. Mr. Hoke knows Attorney Baber and observed him to be agitated and under stress. He asked Attorney Baber what was going on but it appeared that Attorney Baber didn't want to talk about it and said only that he had reason to believe that the Defendant had been involved in a capital crime. Mr. Hoke took this report seriously and escorted the Defendant towards his office. Upon reaching the command center area, he decided to lock the Defendant up. He directed another U.S. Marshall, Randolph Ossinger, to place the Defendant in a cell and he went with Attorney Baber into his office. Attorney Baber indicated that his client was turning himself in for a pre-trial release hold.
Attorney Baber explained to him that his client was surrendering to federal authorities because he was involved in a state crime, which he described as a possible homicide, thus violating the terms of the Defendant's probation. When Mr. Ossinger heard the reference to "homicide" he took the Defendant's knife from Mr. Ready and placed in a plastic evidence bag.
Mr. Hoke and Attorney Baber then met with the Defendant's probation officer, Wayne Maddox. Officer Maddox testified that Attorney Baber explained to him that the Defendant was requesting that his authorized release be revoked and for federal authorities to detain him. He testified that Attorney Baber wished to inform them of a homicide over the weekend but provided no further details. Officer Maddox then called the Bangor Police Department (herein, "BPD") to inquire about any recent suspicious deaths and to inform them about the Defendant's surrendering to federal authorities due to a possible homicide. Officer Maddox testified that he gave the BPD the Defendant's home address and telephone number, and that he told them the Defendant was married and his home should be checked because his wife was not answering the phone.
Sergeant Mark Hathaway of the BPD Criminal Investigations Division was assigned as the principal investigator in the Defendant's case. Deputy District Attorney, Mike Roberts, told Sergeant Hathaway to call Attorney Baber about a dead body. Sergeant Hathaway had two conversations with Attorney Baber. In the first conversation, Sergeant Hathaway testified that Attorney Baber told him that the Defendant's wife, Heather Sargent, was dead in their trailer and that she was seven months pregnant. He further stated that his client had surrendered to federal authorities; that he had the keys to the Defendant's trailer and that he wanted to turn them over to the BPD. In the second conversation, Sergeant Hathaway testified that Attorney Baber confirmed that by giving the BPD the keys to the Defendant's trailer that he was giving his consent on behalf of the Defendant for the BPD officers to enter the trailer. Sergeant Hathaway testified that Attorney Baber was concerned that the possible victim (Heather) may be in need of medical attention or that she might be dead.
Following his conversations with Attorney Baber, Seargent Hathaway sent BPD evidence technician, Detective Joel Nadeau to get the Defendant's mobile home keys. After retrieving them, Sergeant Hathaway remained uncertain as to Heather's condition and he instructed Detective Nadeau and three other officers to go to the Defendant's trailer and do a "well-being check" on her. At this time, Sergeant Hathaway also instructed BPD Detective Jeffery Small to go to the federal building and to seize the Defendant's possessions and clothes.[1]
Detective Nadeau went to the Defendant's trailer with three other detectives. Detective Nadeau received no response after knocking and announcing the presence of the BPD. At which point, Detective Nadeau and Detective Paul Edwards used the keys to enter the front door of the trailer. The Detectives went to the bedroom and knocked on the door. After receiving no response, they entered the room and saw a human form that appeared to be kneeling at the foot of the bed. There was a laundry bag over the torso, and it was obvious to the Detectives that the person was dead from multiple stab wounds.
The Detectives also observed a number of cats that appeared to have been stabbed to death.
The Detectives exited the trailer and secured the scene. Detective Nadeau drafted an affidavit in support of a search warrant and brought it to the Bangor District Court where he obtained authorization for a search warrant from Judge Jessie Gunther. The terms of the search warrant permitted its execution during the day, specifically from 7 a.m. until 9 p.m. Thereafter, the Detectives executed the search warrant and seized various items of evidence from the trailer.[2]
On January 8, 2003, Detective Larry Ellis went to the Penobscot County Jail where the Defendant was being held on federal probation hold. Detective Ellis had the Defendant remove his shirt and then photographed his torso. Detective Ellis also photographed the Defendant's hands and the top of his head. The Defendant did not object to being photographed.
On January 9, 2003, Detective Nadeau completed a summons and informed the Defendant that he was being charged with the murder of his wife, Heather Sargent.[3] On February 3, 2003, the Defendant was indicted for the Intentional, Knowing, or Depraved Indifference Murder for the death of Heather Sargent in violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. §201(1)(A) & (B). The Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress the evidence obtained during the search of his residence on January 6, 2003, and the evidence obtained during the search of his person.
The Defendant challenges the Detective's initial entry into his trailer because the entry was conducted without a warrant. The Defendant also argues that this warrantless entry tainted and invalidated the subsequent search warrant obtained by the Detectives to search his residence. The Law Court has stated:
It is well settled under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments that a search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is per se unreasonable ... subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. It is equally well settled that one of the specifically established exceptions to the requirements of both a warrant and probable cause is a search that is conducted pursuant to consent. State v. Kremen, 2000 ME 117, ¶7, 754 A.2d 964 (quoting Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 36 L.Ed. 2d 854, 93 S.Ct. 2041 (1973)).
The State, while conceding that the initial entry into the Defendant's residence was a warrantless entry, argues that the Defendant's attorney consented to the entry on the Defendant's behalf and provided the keys for the Detectives to enter the residence. The State further argues that the search was justified by exigent circumstances, and that it was appropriate under the doctrine of inevitable discovery.
The State must establish the existence of such an exception by a preponderance of evidence. Maine v. Fredette, 411 A.2d 65, 68 (Me. 1979) (citations omitted). The Law Court has stated that for consent to be valid, an objective manifestation of consent must have been given by word or gesture "by one bearing an appropriate relationship to the property searched." Id. at 68 (citing State v. McLain, 367 A.2d 213, 217 (Me. 19...
To continue reading
Request your trial