Opinion ID: 2380792
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State v. Sweatt

Text: On March 30, 1981, this Court held that various tourmaline gems had been illegally seized from the defendants, Dale and Carol Sweatt. State v. Sweatt, Me., 427 A.2d 940 (1981). Acting upon search warrants, police officers had seized tourmalines found at the Sweatts' home, Dale Sweatt's office and bank vault, a retail store that sold the gems on consignment, and a safe which was co-owned by the Sweatts and their attorney and located in that attorney's office. On November 26, 1980, a Superior Court justice, following a hearing, ordered suppression of part of the seized property and ordered it returned to the defendants pursuant to M.R.Crim.P. 41(e). [1] He denied suppression of the remainder of the seized property. In deciding that the Superior Court had properly granted part of defendants' motion to suppress and improperly denied the remainder of the motion, the Court stated that where the suppressed evidence is neither contraband by force of law nor stolen property nor evidence of a crime, it must be returned to the movant absent an adverse claim of ownership. Id. at 951. The Court expressly noted that no third-party claim has been advanced. Id. The mandate of the Law Court was Remanded for entry of an order suppressing all property seized and directing its prompt return to the movants. Id. The State moved for a rehearing of the appeal on April 13, 1981, claiming that the District Attorney was left in a state of doubt and confusion as to her responsibilities with respect to this property since there existed pending civil claims. Counsel for the defendants submitted a letter to the court explaining the issues and opposing the State's motion. The motion was denied without an opinion on April 21, 1981. Plumbago's participation in State v. Sweatt was quite limited prior to the issuance of the Court's decision since it was not a party to the criminal case. Only the defendants' counsel and the District Attorney participated in the suppression hearing. However, counsel for Plumbago did address the hearing court briefly on the question of the tourmalines' disposition should the court grant the suppression motion. The presiding justice noted that this was not a civil action and that the suppression issue was the only matter before the court; If there are civil suits pending or contemplating attorneys would do well if they think it feasible to protect themselves as  attachment of [sic] trustee process. After this Court's opinion and mandate were issued, Plumbago moved on April 10, 1981, to intervene as a third-party claimant or to appear as amicus curiae in the criminal case on remand. It also moved for a stay of the November 26, 1980, Superior Court order returning the seized tourmaline to the Sweatts. Both motions were denied on April 29, 1981, following the issuance of an order by a Superior Court Justice on April 27, 1981, implementing the mandate of the Law Court directing the return of the tourmalines to the Sweatts. In the criminal case, Plumbago has timely appealed from the denial of its motions to intervene and for a stay, and from the April 27, 1981 order.