State v. Lovell

281 A.3d 651

2022 ME 49

STATE of Maine

v.Joshua LOVELL

Docket: Cum-21-275

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: May 11, 2022

Decided: September 8, 2022

Rory A. McNamara, Esq. (orally), Drake Law LLC, York, for appellant Joshua Lovell

Aaron Frey, Attorney General, and Johanna L. Gauvreau, Asst. Atty. Gen. (orally), Office of the Attorney General, Augusta, for appellee State of Maine

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HORTON, CONNORS, and LAWRENCE, JJ., and HUMPHREY, A.R.J.^*

MEAD, J.

[¶1] Joshua Lovell appeals from a judgment of conviction entered in the trial court (Cumberland County, Warren, J. ) upon his conditional guilty plea to aggravated trafficking of fentanyl powder, 17-A M.R.S. § 1105-A(1)(M) (2022) (Class A); unlawful possession of cocaine, 17-A M.R.S. § 1107-A(1)(B)(2) (2022) (Class C); endangering the welfare of a child, 17-A M.R.S. § 554(1)(C) (2022) (Class D); and violating a condition of release, 15 M.R.S. § 1092(1)(A) (2022) (Class E), following the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] "Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the court's order on the motion to suppress, the [suppression] record supports the following facts." State v. Akers, 2021 ME 43, ¶ 2, 259 A.3d 127 (citation omitted). On December 23, 2019, an Amtrak conductor informed an Amtrak detective that Lovell made a round trip from Portland, Maine to Haverhill, Massachusetts with another man during which the pair disembarked in Haverhill and returned to Portland on the first available train. The conductor reported that the two men appeared to be "high on some kind of drugs" on the return leg of their journey. The next day, the conductor informed the detective that after Lovell and his companion departed the train, he found what appeared to be a "crack pipe" on the seat where the two had been sitting.

[¶3] Based on the conductor's report, the detective consulted an internal Amtrak database and discovered that Lovell had previously made two other trips from Portland to Haverhill in December 2019 and on each trip had stayed in Haverhill for a short time before returning to Portland on the first available train. The detective knew from his training that the Haverhill area was a location where narcotics were obtained and then distributed throughout New England and that passengers who used trains for quick round trips could be using the train system to transport drugs. He also understood that the Amtrak conductors watch for train passengers who appear to be intoxicated from alcohol or drugs and keep track of where the passengers sit so that the conductors can monitor their well-being. Based on this knowledge and the facts provided to him by the conductor, the detective notified Special Agent Morrison of the Maine Drug Enforcement Agency (MDEA) that Lovell had made several quick round trips from Portland to Haverhill; that the conductor working the train on Lovell's most recent trip reported that Lovell and his companion appeared to be high on drugs during their December 23, 2019, return trip; and that the conductor found what he believed was a crack pipe on the seat where Lovell and his companion had been sitting. Morrison expressed interest in hearing about any quick trips Lovell might make in the future.

[¶4] The conductor contacted the detective on January 11, 2020, and informed him that Lovell was scheduled to make a round trip from Portland to Haverhill that day with a thirty-eight minute stopover in Haverhill. The detective subsequently notified Morrison that Lovell was scheduled to make another quick trip to Haverhill, this time accompanied by a child. Morrison obtained a copy of Lovell's driver's license and current bail conditions, which both provided an address for Lovell located north of Portland,¹ and confirmed the time that the train from Haverhill was expected to arrive back in Portland. Morrison then went to the Portland train station and saw a man leaving the train terminal at a time consistent with the arrival of the train from Haverhill. The man's appearance matched Lovell's driver's license photo and the man appeared to be with a small child. Morrison followed the man and the child as they walked through the station, and he confirmed with other officers outside the station that the man he believed to be Lovell had entered a Honda Civic. As the car drove away, Morrison directed the officers to stop it, which they did as the car was on the I-295 southbound ramp.

[¶5] Based on evidence discovered during the stop of the vehicle, a grand jury indicted Lovell on the four counts for which he was later convicted. He entered not guilty pleas on all counts, and moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the stop, arguing that Morrison lacked an objectively reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the seizure.

[¶6] The court held a suppression hearing via Zoom on February 1, 2021, during which it heard testimony from the detective and Morrison. On April 12, 2021, the court denied Lovell's motion to suppress. Following the denial of his motion, Lovell entered conditional guilty pleas on all four counts pursuant to M.R.U. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). On August 30, 2021, the court found Lovell guilty and sentenced him to six years, all but two suspended, and four years of probation on the Class A count,² with concurrent six-month sentences on the remaining three counts.

[¶7] Lovell appealed, asserting that the court improperly allowed witnesses at the suppression hearing to testify about out-of-court statements made by the conductor to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and contending that Morrison lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion justifying Lovell's seizure.

II. DISCUSSION

A. The Conductor's Statements

1. Hearsay

[¶8] "We review a trial court's decision to admit or exclude alleged hearsay evidence for an abuse of discretion." State v. Vaughan, 2009 ME 63, ¶ 5, 974 A.2d 930 (quotation marks omitted). The Maine Rules of Evidence apply to hearings on motions to suppress. Id. ; M.R. Evid. 101(a)(b) ; M.R. Evid. 104 Restyling Note - Nov. 2014. "Hearsay is an out-of-court statement made by a declarant offered in evidence by a witness to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Needham v. Needham, 2022 ME 7, ¶ 11, 267 A.3d 1112 (citing M.R. Evid. 801). "[A] statement made by a person out of court is not hearsay if it is introduced as evidence of probable cause or an articulable suspicion and not for the truth of the matter asserted." State v. Poole, 551 A.2d 108, 110 (Me. 1988) (citing M.R. Evid. 104 Advisers’ Note to former M.R. Evid. 104, Feb. 2, 1976); see also State v. Johnson, 2014 ME 83, ¶ 9, 95 A.3d 621 ; Vaughan, 2009 ME 63, ¶¶ 8-14, 974 A.2d 930. "In order to support a brief investigatory stop of a motor vehicle, such as the stop in this case, a police officer must have an objectively reasonable, articulable suspicion that either criminal conduct, a civil violation, or a threat to public safety has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur." State v. Sylvain, 2003 ME 5, ¶ 11, 814 A.2d 984 (footnote omitted).

[¶9] Lovell contends that the conductor's out-of-court statements were hearsay because they were introduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted; namely, that Lovell and his companion were high on their return trip to Portland and that a crack pipe was found on their seat after they departed the train. This argument misapprehends the motion court's analysis on a motion to suppress. When reviewing a motion to suppress, the court first determines the factual underpinnings of the officer's suspicion that either criminal conduct, a civil violation, or a threat to public safety has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur and the observations and information upon which the officer's suspicion are based. Id. The court then considers the purely legal question of whether, given its factual findings, the officer's suspicion was objectively reasonable as a matter of law. See State v. Sasso , 2016 ME 95, ¶ 15, 143 A.3d 124 ; State v. Simmons , 2016 ME 49, ¶ 8, 135 A.3d 824 ; Sylvain, 2003 ME 5, ¶ 11, 814 A.2d 984. Even if information provided to law enforcement is later determined to be incorrect, the ultimate truth of the information has no bearing on a reasonable suspicion analysis. See, e.g., Vaughan, 2009 ME 63, ¶ 11, 974 A.2d 930. Rather, the suppression court considers the information known to the officer at the time of the seizure, the source of the officer's information, and all the circumstances under which the officer received the information to assess whether, based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer's suspicion was objective, articulable, and reasonable. Id . ; Sylvain, 2003 ME 5, ¶¶ 11, 14, 814 A.2d 984.

[¶10] Morrison's testimony about the conductor's out-of-court statements was offered to support the conclusion that he had an objectively reasonable belief under the totality of the circumstances that Lovell was engaging in criminal activity at the time he ordered the seizure. See Vaughan, 2009 ME 63, ¶ 14, 974 A.2d 930. The conductor did not need to testify at the suppression hearing because "[t]he test is whether the information given [to Morrison] contain[ed] sufficient indicia of reliability, not whether it establishe[d] the truth of the[ ] particular facts." State v. Peaslee, 526 A.2d 1392, 1392 (Me. 1987).

[¶11] We conclude that the information from the conductor presented sufficient indicia of reliability and that it was objectively reasonable for Morrison to rely upon the information from both the conductor and the detective to conclude that criminal activity was occurring. Because "a statement made by a person out of court is not hearsay if it is introduced as evidence of ... an articulable suspicion," Poole , 551 A.2d at 110, the court did not err in concluding that the testimony regarding the conductor's statements was not hearsay.³ See Vaughan, 2009 ME 63, ¶ 14, 974 A.2d 930.

2. Confrontation Clause

[¶12] Lovell...