State of Maine v. Paul Lovett , 109 A.3d 1135 ( 2015 )

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT Reporter of Decisions
Decision: 2015 ME 7
Docket: Aro-14-115
Argued: December 9, 2014
Decided: January 29, 2015
Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, and HJELM, JJ.
STATE OF MAINE
v.
PAUL LOVETT
GORMAN, J.
[¶1] Paul Lovett appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the trial
court (Aroostook County, Cuddy. J.) following the denial of Lovett’s motion to
suppress. Lovett contends that law enforcement lacked probable cause to search
the vehicle he was riding in. We affirm the judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶2] On September 13, 2013, the State filed an indictment charging Lovett
with unlawful trafficking of scheduled drugs (Class B),
17-A M.R.S § 1103(1-A)(A) (2014), and seeking criminal forfeiture of cash
discovered during the search, 15 M.R.S. § 5826 (2014). Lovett pleaded not guilty,
and then moved to suppress the evidence gathered from a search of the vehicle he
was riding in on May 17, 2013.
2
[¶3] After hearing, the court found the following facts, which are supported
by competent testimony in the suppression record. On May 17, 2013, Agent
Shawn Gillen of the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency advised Agent Craig Holder
that Crime Stoppers, an MDEA phone tip line, received information about a white
Ford vehicle with Delaware plates leaving Fort Fairfield headed south on U.S.
Route One. The informant reported that cocaine was hidden behind the CD player
of the vehicle. The informant also reported that the vehicle was operated by a
white female who had a black male passenger. At the time Agent Holder received
the phone tip, he believed it was from an anonymous source. However, Agent
Gillen testified that, at the time of the search, he understood that the tip was not
anonymous and that the informant had given reliable information in the past.
[¶4] MDEA agents set up a surveillance point outside of Houlton on
U.S. Route One, where they observed a white Ford vehicle with a white female
operator and a black male passenger. The rear of the vehicle displayed a single
Delaware plate. Agents stopped and searched the vehicle. Lovett, who is not
challenging the stop of the vehicle, seeks to suppress the evidence found during
this search conducted by Agents Holden and Gillen.1
1
The suppression court found that agents discovered the evidence behind the CD player of a van. All
of the testimony given at the suppression hearing tended to show that the vehicle was a truck, not a van,
and that the evidence was found inside a DVD player, not behind a CD player. Nevertheless, these
factual mischaracterizations do not affect our overall analysis.
3
[¶5] The suppression court concluded that MDEA had sufficient probable
cause to search the vehicle based on the totality of the circumstances, including the
tip and confirmation of details from the tip, as observed by the MDEA agents.
Lovett entered a conditional guilty plea for unlawful trafficking of scheduled drugs
(Class B), 17-A M.R.S § 1103(1-A)(A), pursuant to M.R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). The
court entered a judgment on the plea and made a finding as to criminal forfeiture,
15 M.R.S. § 5826. It sentenced Lovett to twenty-four months in prison, fined him
$400, and entered an order of forfeiture. Lovett timely appealed the ruling on the
motion to suppress pursuant to 15 M.R.S. § 2115 (2014) and M.R. App. P. 2.
II. DISCUSSION
[¶6] We review the court’s findings on the motion to suppress for clear error
and the ultimate decision to suppress de novo. See State v. Bragg, 2012 ME 102,
¶ 8, 48 A.3d 769. We “will uphold the court’s denial of a motion to suppress if any
reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court’s decision.”
State v. Diana, 2014 ME 45, ¶ 11, 89 A.3d 132 (quotation marks omitted).
[¶7] At the suppression hearing, the State argued that Lovett lacked
standing to challenge the search of the vehicle, but the court did not address that
issue in deciding the motion. The State did not appeal the court’s ruling, and
neither of the parties briefed the issue on appeal, but we nonetheless address
Lovett’s standing because “[s]tanding is a threshold issue and Maine courts are
4
only open to those who meet this basic requirement.” Lindemann v. Comm’n on
Governmental Ethics & Election Practices, 2008 ME 187, ¶ 8, 961 A.2d 538
(quotation marks omitted).
[¶8] “[T]he question of whether a specific individual has standing is
significantly affected by the unique context of the claim.” Id. If the motion to
suppress asserts a violation of the Fourth Amendment, “the defendant must
demonstrate that his own reasonable expectation of privacy was violated by the
action of the State.” State v. Maloney, 1998 ME 56, ¶ 6, 708 A.2d 277 (emphasis
added); see also State v. Ayers, 464 A.2d 963, 968 (Me. 1983). Here, there is no
evidence in the record tending to show that Lovett had a reasonable expectation of
privacy in the vehicle he was riding in or an interest in the property that was seized
and, therefore, we must conclude that Lovett did not have standing. See Rakas v.
Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 148 (1978) (stating that to establish standing to challenge
the search of a vehicle, a defendant must demonstrate a “possessory interest” in the
vehicle or “an interest in the property seized”).
[¶9] Litigants and judges at suppression hearings must address the issue of
standing because the inquiry as to whether a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights
have been substantively violated requires a determination as to whether that
defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy was violated. See State v. Hamm,
348 A.2d 268, 271-72 (Me. 1975). Here, because Lovett failed to show his
5
reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle, we agree with the court’s
conclusion that Lovett’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the search,
and affirm the court’s denial of his motion to suppress.
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
On the briefs:
Adam P. Swanson, Esq., Swanson Law, P.A., Presque Isle, for
appellant Paul Lovett
Todd R. Collins, District Attorney, and Kurt A. Kafferlin, Asst.
Dist. Atty., 8th Prosecutorial District, Houlton, for appellee
State of Maine
At oral argument:
Adam P. Swanson, Esq., for appellant Paul Lovett
Todd R. Collins, District Attorney, for appellee State of Maine
Aroostook County Superior Court (Houlton) docket number CR-2013-69
FOR CLERK REFERENCE ONLY