State v. Blais

1

STATE OF MAINE v. BREIMTON BLAIS Defendant

No. CD-CR-20-04528

Superior Court of Maine, Cumberland

January 13, 2022

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS

Jed J French, Chief Judge Maine District Court

Defendant's motions to suppress came before the court for hearing on December 22, 2021. Defendant, Brenton Blais, was present with his lawyer, Attorney Neale Duffett. Assistant District Attorney Amanda Doherty appeared on behalf of the State via Zoom videoconference. The court heard testimony from Officer Colby Clark of the Westbrook Police Department regarding the circumstances of Defendant's arrest. Defendant entered evidence including the two search warrant applications at issue (Defendant's exhibits 1 and 2), the Westbrook Fire and Rescue EMS Patient Care Report (Defendant's exhibit 3), and copy of a judgment of the United States District Court, District of Maine showing Defendant's 2011 federal conviction (Defendant's exhibit 4).

Mr Blais argues that there was no probable cause for his arrest. Additionally, he seeks suppression of medical records of his treatment at Maine Medical Center on October 9, 2020 and a blood sample taken from him during his treatment. The medical records and the blood sample were the subjects of separate search warrants (Defendant's exhibits 1 and 2). Further Defendant argues on different grounds for the suppression of chemical analysis performed on Defendant's blood and urine. While Defendant had initially moved to suppress statements he made after the reading of his Miranda warnings, at the conclusion of the testimony Defendant informed the court that he would no longer seek suppression of those statements.^[1]

Arrest

Probable cause to arrest "exists where facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the officers and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information would warrant a prudent and cautious person to believe that the arrestee did commit or is committing" an offense. State v. Journet, 2018 ME 114, ¶ 15, 191 A.3d 1181.

The facts known or reasonably believed by Officer Clark are derived from his observations of Defendant at the scene of the accident, his conversation with the Defendant's probation officer while at the scene, and his observations at Maine Medical Center. At the scene, Officer Clark observed a single-car had struck a utility pole at such speed that the pole was toppled and split and the car's airbags had deployed. Officer Clark described Defendant's speech on scene to be mumbling. Defendant could not produce a valid driver's license and gave Officer Clark incorrect or untrue identifying information. Defendant gave conflicting accounts of the cause of the crash to different officers at the scene, telling Officer Clark that his dog had distracted him but telling another officer that a drink can had rolled near Defendant's feet. Once provided with Defendant's real name, Officer Clark learned that Defendant had a suspended driver's license and was at liberty under conditions of release and on probation. Upon reaching Defendant's probation officer, Officer Clark learned that Defendant had a substance use history of heroin and methamphetamine use. Defendant denied being under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the scene.

Due to the severity of the crash, Defendant was removed from the scene by Westbrook Fire and Rescue and taken to Maine Medical Center before Officer Clark could complete a standard on-scene investigation. As such, Officer Clark made his way to Maine Medical Center to complete his investigation. On the way to the hospital Officer Clark picked up Officer Haskell, a forensic phlebotomist, to accompany him, suggesting that, at that time, Officer Clark suspected that Defendant may have been operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

At Maine Medical Center, Defendant was treated within the Critical Care Unit, and once doctors indicated it was acceptable to speak with Defendant, Clark noticed that Defendant was no longer wearing sunglasses and his pupils were constricted. Clark observed Defendant to be nodding off while speaking on the phone, and Officer Clark knew that such nodding was a symptom of drug use. Additionally, Defendant appeared to have fresh injection marks on his arm and wrist area consistent with intravenous drug use, and once given consent to draw blood from Defendant, Office Haskell was unable to find a healthy vein from which to draw.

Defendant argues that nodding and injection marks could have been the result of things other than drug use, and suggests that the contents of the EMS Patient Care Report (Defendant's exhibit 3} negate probable cause.^[2] However, the question is not whether, in hindsight, anything else could possibly have caused the conditions that Officer Clark observed. The question for this court is, given all the facts taken together, was it reasonable for the officer to believe Defendant had been under the influence when he drove the car and hit the pole. Given not only Defendant's physical condition in the hospital but also his mumbling speech and conflicting and evasive statements at the scene, this court finds that probable cause existed for Defendant's arrest at Maine Medical Center for criminal operating under the influence, pursuant to 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A).

Sufficiency of Search Warrants and Affidavits

A search warrant application must demonstrate probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and that enumerated evidence of the offense will be likely found at the place to be searched. United States v. Zayas-Diaz, 95 F.3d 105, 110-11 (1^stCir. 1996). The existence of probable cause is assessed under a totality of the circumstances test. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983). The totality of the circumstances test "requires a practical, common-sense decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit. .. there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." Id. at 238.

"In order to meet the probable cause standard, the affidavit must set forth some nexus between the evidence to be seized and the locations to be searched." State v. Nunez, 2016 ME 185, ¶ 19, 153 A.3d 84. "The affidavit must indeed establish a sufficient nexus, but direct nexus evidence is not necessarily required: 'The nexus need not, and often will not, rest on direct observation, but rather can be inferred from the type of crime, the nature of the items sought.. Id. ¶ 25 (emphasis added). "Probable cause 'is flexible and based on common sense' and does not require proof that evidence of a crime will in fact be found in the place to be searched." Id. ¶ 30 quoting State v, Martin 2015 ME 91, ¶ 10, 120 A.3d 113.

The Supreme Court of the United States has established that:

... [A]fter the fact scrutiny by courts of the sufficiency of an affidavit should not take the form of de novo review. A magistrate's determination of probable cause should be paid great deference by reviewing courts . . . courts should not invalidate warrant[s] by interpreting affidavits] in a hypertechnical, rather than a commonsense manner.

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. at 236 (citations omitted) (quotation marks omitted).

As such, this court is limited to "determining whether the issuing magistrate had a substantial basis to issue the warrant drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of probable cause." Nunez, 2016 ME 185, ¶ 30, 153 A.3d 84.

There are two search warrants at issue in this case based on identical affidavits. (Defendant's exhibits 1 and 2). The first seeks a warrant for medical records and the second seeks a warrant to retrieve any blood samples taken during Defendant's treatment at Maine Medical Center.

Medical Records Warrant

In the warrant affidavit contained in Defendant's Exhibit 1 Officer Clark details some, though not all, of his observations from the scene and the hospital after the crash. The affidavit describes Officer Colby's observation of the single car crash, that the Defendant was mumbling when answering questions at the scene, and that he gave conflicting stories to different...