Opinion ID: 2178950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Unlawful search and seizure and other errors at trial

Text: The defendant moved to suppress evidence of a rifle taken from a car and aluminum foil insulation taken from a cabin obtained under two warrants. The Court after a careful hearing found no violation of the defendant's constitutional rights and dismissed the motion. We agree. The defendant maintains that because no copy of the warrant was served upon him before the search of the car and cabin, the property was illegally seized. A copy of the warrant and inventory in each instance was served on the defendant on the morning after the search. In State v. Martelle, Me., 252 A.2d 316, no copy of the warrant or receipt for the property taken was ever served on the defendant, nor were any left in her apartment. The Court said, at p. 320: Nevertheless we hold that non-compliance with the ministerial demands of the rule [41(d)] did not invalidate the search and seizure under the warrant. At the time the warrants were issued and executed the defendant was in custody on a matter unrelated to the death of Jane Lund. His arrest on the charge of murder came later. The defendant offers no reason, nor do we find any reason, why the fact he was in custody had a bearing on the validity of the search and seizure procedures. His aid was neither sought nor required in obtaining and executing the warrants. Whether he was in or out of custody at the time was not material. There were two warrants issued; one relating to the house or camp and the other the automobile. The defendant argues that each warrant was invalid on its face and that each affidavit failed to set forth proper grounds or to describe the property sufficiently. The search warrants were issued on the basis of affidavits of Earl A. Haines, a detective on the State Police force, and on his information alone. We do not have here the problem of the informer's tip. State v. Hawkins, Me., 261 A.2d 255. Mr. Haines had observed the body of Jane Lund buried in a wooded area eighty-two feet from the camp where she lived with her husband Howard Lund, Jr. There was a bullet hole in the body which was wrapped in aluminum foil insulation. These facts were known to the affiant. The complete description of the property allegedly concealed reads:    a firearm or firearms of unknown calibre used in the killing of one Jane Lynn Lund; and aluminum foil insulation paper identical to that used to conceal the body of the above Jane Lynn Lund. The affiant further stated that he had probable cause to believe that the firearm or firearms was used in the killing of Jane Lund and that the above described aluminum foil insulation paper is non-testimonial evidence which will aid in the apprehension of person or persons who killed the said Jane Lynn Lund. Given the facts of the body with the bullet hole, wrapped in aluminum foil insulation material, and the camp nearby, it cannot be said there was not probable cause or reasonable ground to believe that the death weapon and insulation material were located in the house. The second search warrant reads in part:    your affiant having observed on June 18, 1968 through the window of the above described automobile, a brown cardboard box with the word `Savage' on the said thereof; said box located on the rear floor of the said automobile. The affidavit sets forth probable cause to believe that the automobile in question located forty feet from the house was owned by Howard Lund, Jr. and was used to conceal a firearm or firearms used to kill one Jane Lynn Lund; said firearm or firearms being non-testimonial evidence which will aid in the apprehension of the killer of the above Jane Lynn Lund. Here again, it was reasonable for a police officer to seek evidence of the death weapon in the car based upon his observation. It is urged, however, that the warrants, at least with reference to the death weapon, are based upon no more than a fishing expedition by a state detective in that he sought the death weapon, both in the house and in the automobile. In our view the circumstances surrounding the finding of the body, the bullet wounds, and the other facts which had been ascertained, and were known to the affiant, clearly would lead the untrained citizen, let alone the professional police officer, to consider there was reasonable ground or probable cause to find the death weapon in one or the other of the places named, and to find the insulation material in the house. The constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizure does not require that common sense be disregarded. The warrants in our considered view were issued properly under Rule 41, M.R.Crim.P. and violated no constitutional rights of the defendant. State v. Hawkins, supra, and cases cited therein.