ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
ROBERT
E. MULLEN, DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE
This
matter came to the attention of the undersigned on January 7,
2019 with respect to the Defendant's Motion to Suppress
filed December 20, 2018. Defendant sought to suppress all
statements Defendant may have made to law enforcement on the
day in question as well as "all out of Court
identifications of Defendant and any observations made of the
Defendant subsequent to the initial investigatory stop"
upon grounds that such statements were made in violation of
Defendant's Miranda rights as well as because
said statements were not made voluntarily.[1] The defense also
claimed that the arresting officer made "an
extraterritorial stop" in violation of 30-A M.R.S.
§ 2671 and Winslow, Me. Code §2-44 (2010) After
hearing, reading the post-hearing memoranda of counsel, and
watching the nearly three hour video demonstrating the
interaction between the arresting officer and the Defendant
as well as the officer at the police station, the Court makes
the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law upon
which the Order set forth below is based:
1. The
Defendant is charged with Operating After Revocation, Class
C, as well as Violation of a Protective Order, Class D.
2.
Officer Christianson of the Winslow Police Department
(hereinafter "Officer Christianson") has
approximately eleven years of experience in law enforcement.
He was on duty in uniform and driving a marked cruiser on
October 2, 2018 at approximately 3:30 p.m. when he received a
message from a fellow Winslow police officer who was off-duty
and located in Winslow. The off-duty officer inquired of the
other officer whether there was a protection from abuse order
in place against the Defendant. The off-duty officer believed
Defendant was with a woman who was the subject of a
protection order.
3. The
officer ran the Defendant's record and learned the
Defendant was subject to a protection order prohibiting
contact between Defendant and one Meghan Hall and also that
Defendant's motor vehicle license had been revoked.
4. The
off-duty officer believed he had witnessed the Defendant
operating a motor vehicle after Defendant had driven off from
an establishment in Waterville by himself. The off-duty
officer after learning of the above provided Officer
Christianson with the motor vehicle license plate number of
the vehicle that Defendant was operating. The motor vehicle
came back registered to Ms. Hall. Meanwhile the off-duty
officer followed the Defendant. The Defendant left the City
of Winslow and entered the City of Waterville.
5. The
off-duty officer asked officer Christianson to go to the 5
Broad Street, Waterville address to which the officer
suspected the Defendant had driven.[2] Officer Christianson went to
the address and in fact saw a parked vehicle that matched the
description of the vehicle the off-duty officer had witnessed
being driven by Defendant.
6.
Officer Christianson knocked on the door on two occasions; on
the second occasion the Defendant, who officer Christianson
knew from prior experience with Defendant, answered the door.
The Defendant was speaking on cell phone to Ms. Hall. Officer
Christianson told the Defendant the Defendant was violating a
protection order by being at the residence. The Defendant
told the officer he was speaking with Ms. Hall and that the
protection order had "been dropped." Officer
Christianson told Defendant the officer would take him to the
Winslow Police Department and "figure things out."
The officer told Defendant he had to put handcuffs on
Defendant "by policy" and arrested Defendant for
violating the protection order and operating a motor vehicle
after his license had been revoked without incident. The
Defendant was generally cooperative throughout his
interaction with Officer Christianson.
6. On
the way to the police station the Defendant and Officer
Christianson engaged in conversation. The officer did not
read Defendant his Miranda rights. Officer
Christianson explained at hearing that he had not read
Defendant his Miranda rights because he did not
intend to ask Defendant any questions, believing that he had
already witnessed Defendant violating the protection order by
conversing with Ms. Hall over the telephone and that the
off-duty officer had already witnessed the Defendant
operating a motor vehicle with a revoked license and being
with Ms. Hall. The officer informed Defendant someone had
seen him driving even though Defendant had initially denied
operating a motor vehicle. The Defendant eventually
acknowledged that Ms. Hall and he had been shopping and that
"it was stupid" for him to have driven home.
7.
Officer Christianson called the courthouse to ascertain
whether the protection order had in fact been
"dropped." The officer learned that although a
motion had been filed to "drop" the order, the
order was still in full force and effect.
8.
Officer Christianson advised the Regional Dispatch Center
that he was proceeding to 5 Broad Street in Waterville in
connection with the Defendant operating a motor vehicle and
also apparently having contact with Ms. Hall in violation of
the protection order. The officer was told that no Waterville
police officer was immediately available to respond to the
situation.
9. The
Court determines that Officer Christianson, or someone at the
Winslow Police Department, should have read Defendant his
Miranda rights before having discussions with the
Defendant once Defendant was arrested and put in handcuffs.
Even though Officer Christianson did not pose specific
questions to the Defendant, the officer made statements to
him that the officer should have known were likely to elicit
incriminating responses from the Defendant. The Court finds
no bad faith on the part of Officer Christianson, but the
fact remains that after the officer summarized the evidence
against the Defendant to the Defendant, the officer should
have realized that the Defendant would likely respond, and
potentially in an incriminating manner. Accordingly, all
statements made by Defendant after he was arrested
and handcuffs applied, as exhibited at approximately
11:40 on the video, are inadmissible as part
of the State's case in chief, including any incriminating
statements the Defendant made while at the Winslow Police
Department.[3]
10.
With respect to the argument that Officer Christianson acted
outside the scope of his authority by travelling to
Waterville from Winslow and effecting the arrest of
Defendant, the undersigned acknowledges that the powers of
law enforcement officers are governed by 30-A M.R.S. §
2671(2). As the State points out, however, there are numerous
exceptions to the general rule that a police officer has no
authority in criminal or traffic infraction matters outside
the limits of the municipality in which they are appointed,
see § 267l(2)(A-F). It is subsection 2(E) that
applies here.
11. In
this case the Court finds Officer Christianson acted
reasonably and within the confines of the law when he
travelled from Winslow across the bridge to Waterville to 5
Broad Street to investigate the information provided to him
by a fellow police officer that Defendant was in the midst of
committing a violation of a protection order, a Class D
misdemeanor, and also committing a Class C felony, Operating
After Revocation. The "fresh pursuit" in this case
could hardly had been "fresher." Officer
Christianson proceeded to Waterville from Winslow immediately
after receiving the information from his fellow off-duty
officer. Christianson after checking with the Regional
Dispatch Center believed there was no Waterville officer
available to drive to Broad Street. Christianson located the
Defendant mere minutes after arriving at the Broad Street
address, and seconds later the ...