ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Michaela Murphy Justice.
the Court is Defendant's Motion to Suppress Search
Warrant M. R.U. Crim. P. 41A.
Statements of Fact
1. A warrant was requested by Augusta Police Department
Detective Matthew Estes on April 14, 2016.
2. The same warrant was reviewed, signed, and issued by
Augusta District Court Judge Stanfield on April 14, 2016.
3. The search warrant was executed on April 26, 2016 at the
specified address of 54 Middle St. Apt. 3, Augusta, ME.
4. The executed search warrant was returned, with inventory,
to the clerk's office on May 2, 2016.
5. The search warrant specifically stated that property to be
seized included "cellular phones and other electronic
and/or digital transmitting devices..."
6. The content information obtained in this case was obtained
directly from the phone by law enforcement officers and not
from a provider of an electronic communication service.
Conclusions of Law
brings this motion seeking to suppress all content discovered
on Defendant's cell phone pursuant to 16 M.R.S. §
645. Defendant argues that the search of content on his cell
phone following its seizure is governed by Maine Revised
Statutes Title 16, Chapter 3, Subchapter 10: "Portable
Electronic Device Content Information". According to
Title 16, Section § 643, "Notice must be given to
the owner or user of a portable electronic device whose
content information was obtained by a government
entity." 16 M.R.S. § 643. This notice must be
provided within 3 days of obtaining the content information
unless the State has sought exception from the Court.
Id. Where the State obtains content information in
violation of Subchapter 10, 16 M.R.S. § 645 requires
that the evidence be excluded. Defendant argues that because
no notice was provided after the State obtained content based
information from Defendant's cell phone, the State
violated section 643 and the evidence should be suppressed
pursuant to section 645.
Court looks to the plain language of a criminal statute in
order to interpret the legislative intent, "avoiding
absurd, illogical, or inconsistent results." State
v. White, 2001 ME 65, ¶ 4, 769 A.2d 827; State
v. King, 371 A.2d 640, 642 (Me. 1977). When interpreting
statute, the Court must "consider the whole statutory
scheme for which the section at issue forms a part so that a
harmonious result, presumably the intent of the Legislature,
may be achieved." State v. Day, 2000 ME 192,
¶ 5, 760 A.2d 1039.
interpreting the statute as a whole, it is clear that section
643 requires notice to be provided to a cell phone user every
time cell phone content has been obtained by a government