United States v. Manubolu, 1:19-cr-00184-JAW
Decision Date | 10 August 2020 |
Docket Number | 1:19-cr-00184-JAW |
Citation | 478 F.Supp.3d 32 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Praneeth MANUBOLU |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maine |
Andrew McCormack, Raphaelle A. Silver, Office of the U.S. Attorney District of Maine, Bangor, ME, for United States of America.
Kurt C. Peterson, Matthew D. Morgan, Walter F. McKee, McKee Law LLC PA, Augusta, ME, James S. Nixon, Federal Defender's Office, Bangor, ME, for Praneeth Manubolu.
ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS
In the early morning hours, an allegedly intoxicated individual crashed his car within a national park, killing his three passengers. Without first obtaining a warrant, a police officer from a nearby town ordered and oversaw a blood draw from the driver pursuant to a state law mandating that drivers submit to a blood draw if there is probable cause to believe that a motor vehicle accident has resulted will result in death. The defendant-driver seeks to suppress the results of that blood draw, arguing that it was taken in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(c)(3) and his Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.
Because the Court concludes that the mandatory blood draw was unconstitutional, and because the Court further finds that there were no exigent circumstances and the good-faith exception does not apply to the officer's conduct, the Court grants the motion and suppresses the blood draw.
On August 31, 2019, United States Park Ranger Brian Dominy (Ranger Dominy) swore out a three-count complaint against Praneeth Manubolu, charging him with three violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 7 and 13, as well as 17-A M.R.S. 203(1)(A). Compl. (ECF No. 1). On October 9, 2019, a grand jury returned a six-count indictment against Mr. Manubolu, charging him with three violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1112(a), a violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(1), a violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.23(a)(2), and a violation of 36 C.F.R. § 4.22(b)(1). Indictment (ECF No. 29). On October 31, Mr. Manubolu filed a motion to suppress a blood draw conducted at a local hospital upon the order of police officers. Def.'s Mot. to Suppress (ECF No. 40) (Def.'s Mot. ). On December 9, 2019, the Government responded. Gov't's Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Suppress (ECF No. 44) (Gov't's Resp. ). Mr. Manubolu replied to the Government on December 23, 2019. Def.'s Reply to Gov't's Resp. to Def.'s Mot. to Suppress (ECF No. 45) (Def.'s Reply ).
On January 2, 2020, the Court held a conference with counsel to discuss the pending motion to suppress. Min. Entry (ECF No. 47). The Court noted that the hospital where police brought Mr. Manubolu had conducted its own blood test of Mr. Manubolu for medical purposes. Assuming this second blood test did not pose the same Fourth Amendment concerns as the first test, the Court asked counsel to determine whether they wished the Court to move forward with the motion to suppress or whether the better course would be to first test the admissibility of the second blood test.
On January 10, 2020, counsel for Mr. Manubolu informed the Court that Mr. Manubolu had elected to proceed with a hearing on the pending motion to suppress. Letter from Att'y McKee to Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the District of Maine (ECF No. 48). On January 13, 2020, the Court scheduled a hearing on the motion to suppress. Notice of Hr'g on Mot. (ECF No. 49). On February 6, 2020, counsel for Mr. Manubolu informed the Court of additional authority relevant to his motion to suppress. Letter from Att'y McKee to Clerk of Court for the United States District Court for the District of Maine (ECF No. 50).
On March 2, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the motion to suppress. Min. Entry (ECF No. 53). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court informed the parties that it believed the doctrine of constitutional avoidance cautioned in favor of resolving the admissibility of the second blood test before reaching the motion to suppress. Tr. of Proceedings at 130:25-132:24 (ECF No. 57) (Suppression Hr'g ). On March 13, 2020, the Court held a second conference of counsel at which counsel for both parties convinced the Court that, no matter the resolution of a motion in limine on the second blood test, the Court would still need to address the merits of Mr. Manubolu's motion to suppress. Min. Entry (ECF No. 56). On April 15, 2020, the court reporter filed the official transcript of the suppression hearing. Suppression Hr'g.
At approximately 2:48 a.m. on August 31, 2019, Bar Harbor Police Department (BHPD) Officer Judson Cake (Officer Cake) received a call from dispatch informing him of a motor vehicle crash on Park Loop Road in Acadia National Park (Acadia). Suppression Hr'g at 4:16-17, 5:01, 7:21-8:14.1 Because the rangers in Acadia stop working at midnight at that time of year, BHPD has a memorandum of understanding with the park to respond to calls from the park during the rangers' off-hours.2 Id. at 08:17-23, 104:19-23. Officer Cake drove to the scene of the crash, arriving at approximately 2:56 a.m. Id. at 08:15-16, 08:24-09:13.
When Officer Cake arrived at the scene, he observed a badly damaged car in the woods on the right side of the road and a man—Mr. Manubolu—standing on the side of the road. Id. at 09:16-18, 10:01-05. Officer Cake spoke briefly with Mr. Manubolu but, upon realizing that the crashed car contained passengers, went to the car to see if he could render aid. Id. at 10:06-19. At this point, around 3:00 a.m., two additional BHPD officers—Officer Jerrod Hardy (Officer Hardy) and Officer Liam Harrington (Officer Harrington)—arrived at the scene. Id. at 11:14-25, 57:21. Officer Hardy attempted to reach the passengers in the back of the car but was unsuccessful. Id. at 12:03-04, 63:13-64:14. Officer Harrington and Officer Hardy then assisted Officer Cake in removing the passenger in the front of the car and the two carried her to the side of the road, where Officer Harrington administered CPR until the arrival of an ambulance at approximately 3:12 a.m. Id. at 12:14-13:01; 65:13-25.
While Officer Harrington was administering CPR, Officer Hardy went to Mr. Manubolu to address his injuries. Id. at 66:01-04. Officer Hardy observed that Mr. Manubolu had a goose egg-sized bump underneath his right eye and some cuts and scrapes on his face and arms. Id. at 66:05-08. At this point, to Officer Hardy's knowledge, all three passengers in the car were dead. Id. at 66:16-17.
When the ambulance arrived at approximately 3:12 a.m. with three Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs), Officer Hardy was speaking with Mr. Manubolu and Officer Cake was taking photographs of the scene before it was contaminated by additional people. Id. at 12:24-13:13, 68:01-07, 90:20-22. The two also made additional attempts to retrieve the passengers from the back of the car. Id. at 13:14-19. In addition to the ambulance, the Southwest Harbor Police Department sent an officer to block Park Loop Road from other drivers; Ranger Dominy also arrived on scene at approximately 3:30 a.m. Id. at 13:20-14:04, 22:08-19, 105:22-25. BHPD had called Ranger Dominy at approximately 3:07 a.m. after having first contacted Deputy Chief Ranger Therese Picard, who requested that Ranger Dominy respond. Id. at 104:08-18.
When they arrived, the EMTs asked Mr. Manubolu to accompany them into the ambulance so they could address his injuries. Id. at 68:18-23. Mr. Manubolu consented but also requested that Officer Hardy join him in the ambulance so that they could continue their conversation, which Officer Hardy did. Id. at 68:24-69:04. In the ambulance, Mr. Manubolu related to Officer Hardy the events of that evening: he and his friends left their campsite at Smuggler's Den and went out for dinner at the Dog & Pony Tavern, where he had two shots of whiskey, before attending the Carmen Veranda dance club and stargazing. Id. at 69:15-70:16. Throughout this conversation, Mr. Manubolu repeatedly expressed concern for his friends. Id. at 70:17-23. It was during this conversation in the ambulance that Officer Hardy began to notice the odor of alcohol coming off of Mr. Manubolu, as well as the fact that his eyes were bloodshot. Id. at 70:02-06. Though the EMTs asked Mr. Manubolu to go to the hospital, he initially did not want to go, and only agreed once he had extracted an agreement from Officer Hardy that Officer Hardy would accompany him. Id. at 70:21-71:03.
When Ranger Dominy arrived, he was met by the chief of the Bar Harbor Fire Department, who informed him there were three fatalities associated with the accident. Id. at 106:16-20. Officer Cake spoke with Ranger Dominy and informed him of the chronology of Mr. Manubolu's evening as he knew it. Id. at 106:25-107:22. The two determined that the Acadia rangers, not the town police, would take charge of the documentation of the crash scene, though Ranger Dominy was the only ranger on the scene for a long period and required the assistance of the BHPD officers.3 Id. at 14:05-20, 108:08-18. At this point, it was not clear to Officer Cake that any resulting prosecution would be federal, although before Ranger Dominy arrived, Officer Cake said to Officer Hardy something to the effect that because the accident had happened in Acadia, it was "their baby ...." Id. at 16:10-14, 24:19-25:02. That did not become clear to Officer Cake until his supervisor, Lieutenant Pinkham, arrived on the scene, sometime after 3:16 a.m. Id. at 16:15-23.
Before the ambulance transported Mr. Manubolu to the hospital, Officer Hardy stepped out of the ambulance to meet with Ranger Dominy to advise him that he—Officer Hardy—was with the driver of the vehicle, to tell him that he had observed indicators of impairment,4 and to pass on some statements from Mr. Manubolu. Id. at 71:04-16. Officer Hardy passed this information along because he regarded Ranger Dominy as essentially the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Pemberton
...569 U.S. 141 (2013); Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966); United States v. Manubolu, 478 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D. Me. 2020). Mr. Pemberton has the right to refuse medical treatment, including a shot in the arm. United States v. Martin, No. 1:05......
-
United States v. Greenlaw
...569 U.S. 141 (2013); Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966); United States v. Manubolu, 478 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D. Me. 2020). Mr. Greenlaw has the right to refuse medical treatment, including a shot in the arm. See United States v. Martin, No. 1......
-
United States v. Cain
...569 U.S. 141 (2013); Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966); United States v. Manubolu, 478 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D. Me. 2020). Mr. Cain has the right to refuse medicaltreatment, including a shot in the arm. United States v. Martin, No. 1:05CR21, ......