Opinion ID: 2273318
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reese's Motion to Suppress

Text: [¶ 4] Before trial, Reese moved to suppress several statements and the evidence seized in a search of his motel room pursuant to a search warrant. The court ( Brennan, J. ) denied his motion. Reese makes several arguments on appeal. We review the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error as to factual findings and de novo as to issues of law. State v. DiPietro, 2009 ME 12, ¶ 13, 964 A.2d 636, 640; State v. Lockhart, 2003 ME 108, ¶ 15, 830 A.2d 433, 441.
[¶ 5] An officer drove by the motel and observed Reese exiting one of the motel rooms carrying a clear plastic trash bag which he threw into the motel dumpster. When the bag was later recovered it contained some items that were identified as the victim's possessions. Reese appeared to lock himself out of his room. An officer asked Reese his name, told him he was being detained, handcuffed him, and placed him in the back seat of a patrol car. When the officer who supervised the investigation arrived, he opened the back door to the patrol car and explained to Reese that he was being detained due to an investigation involving the victim. Reese responded: We broke up, and I haven't seen her in two weeks. No questions were asked of Reese at that point. [¶ 6] Reese argues that the court erred in holding that his statement in the patrol car was not the product of an interrogation. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that the state may not use a defendant's statements stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Id. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. We have held that a court's conclusion that a law enforcement officer's comment did not constitute interrogation will be upheld unless the evidence shows that a contrary inference was the only reasonable conclusion that could have been drawn. State v. Smith, 612 A.2d 231, 233 (Me. 1992) (quotation marks omitted). Reese's statement in the patrol car was not the product of an interrogation. See id.
[¶ 7] After Reese was arrested, he was taken to an interview room at the Saco Police Department and given a Miranda warning. He responded that he wanted to speak with an attorney and did not want to answer questions. He was then taken to another room where the same officer asked him a series of questions for booking. One of those questions was whether he had with him any form of identification to verify the personal information he had provided. The officer also may have asked him where the identification was. Reese responded that his identification was in his motel room or in a rental vehicle parked at the motel. The officer did not ask Reese any questions about the rental vehicle or the motel room. He asked Reese whether he had a criminal history and Reese replied that he did not. [¶ 8] Reese argues that the questions he was asked during booking about his identity and criminal record violated his right to remain silent and to have an attorney, pursuant to the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution. We have held that brief, neutral questions that are not part of an effort to elicit a confession or admission do not constitute interrogation. State v. Estes, 418 A.2d 1108, 1111 (Me.1980); State v. Simoneau, 402 A.2d 870, 873 (Me.1979). This includes questions intended to obtain the data pertinent to the defendant's identity and necessary for booking. Estes, 418 A.2d at 1111. The questions asked of Reese during booking, including his criminal record, were routine and related to identity only. There is no evidence that the officer was trying to elicit a confession or admission. We agree with the reasoning set forth in the recommended decision in United States v. Hopkins, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 6058, at -14 (citing United States v. Foster, 227 F.3d 1096, 1102-03 (9th Cir.2000); and United States v. Mitchell, 58 F. App'x 14, 16 (4th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (unpublished)), that booking questions may be asked either before or after the Miranda warning.
[¶ 9] A search of Reese's motel room pursuant to a search warrant yielded the gun, ammunition, and other items linked to the crime. It is undisputed that at the time of the suppression hearing the probable cause affidavit for the motel room search was not among the search warrant documents on file in the District Court. Pursuant to M.R.Crim. P. 41, both the officer responsible for executing the search warrant and the court have responsibilities with respect to the filing of the probable cause affidavit and the other search warrant documents. The State was unable to explain why the affidavit was absent from the court file. The officer who executed the search warrant only became aware of the absence many months after the documents were filed. [¶ 10] At the suppression hearing the court admitted testimony over Reese's objection from the District Court judge who reviewed the affidavit and request for a search warrant. The judge's testimony was admitted solely to prove that there was an affidavit presented with the request for a warrant. The court also admitted the testimony of the law enforcement officer who presented the affidavit and request for a warrant to the judge. The officer testified that he remembered drafting an affidavit on his desktop computer, presenting it to his supervisor for review, and then going with another officer to present the affidavit and request for a search warrant to the judge. The next day the officer used the information from the affidavit for the motel room search warrant to draft an affidavit and request for a search warrant for Reese's rental vehicle. The affidavits for the two searches were identical in all respects pertinent to the probable cause facts common to both searches except that the affidavit for the vehicle search identified the officer who observed an empty bullet casing in plain view in the rental vehicle. The observation itself was described in both affidavits. The court admitted both the properly-filed affidavit for the search of the rental vehicle and the copy of the original affidavit for the search of the motel room. [¶ 11] Pursuant to article 1, section 5 of the Maine Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, search warrants must be based on probable cause and supported by oath or affirmation. A probable cause affidavit, when properly returned and filed pursuant to M.R.Crim. P. 41, creates a record that permits judicial review. See 15 M.R.S. § 55 (2009). Reese argues that review of a search warrant is impossible when no probable cause affidavit has been filed as required. We disagree. Meaningful appellate review requires proof that the judge reviewed the affidavit and the request for the warrant simultaneously, see State v. Gamage, 340 A.2d 1, 7 (Me.1975); State v. Stone, 322 A.2d 314, 317 (Me. 1974), and proof that there were grounds for probable cause, see State v. Hollander, 289 A.2d 419, 421 (Me.1972). We decline to invalidate a warrant due to a lost affidavit when the existence and contents of the pertinent language in the affidavit can be proved, as they were here, in a manner sufficient to permit meaningful review. See People v. Galland, 45 Cal.4th 354, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 841, 197 P.3d 736, 746-47 (2008) and cases cited therein. [¶ 12] We note that the District Court judge's testimony appears not to have been necessary because the law enforcement officer testified that he presented the judge with both the affidavit and the request for a search warrant at the same time. It would have been better practice on the part of the State not to have called the judge to testify so as not to put the judge in the position of being a witness in the proceeding. However, the admission of the judge's testimony at the suppression hearing did not prejudice Reese. See M.R. Evid. 403.