Opinion ID: 2328075
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Owner's Manual

Text: [¶ 28] Nigro's final argumentthat the court erred in allowing the owner's manual to be admitted in evidenceis also without merit. As the State correctly argues, Nigro's motion to suppress the manual was untimely. Rule 41A(b) of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure, read in conjunction with Rule 12(b)(3) requires that motions to suppress be filed within 21 days after entry of a plea. A party failing to comply with these time requirements loses the right to file the motion. State v. Kennedy, 2002 ME 5, ¶ 6, 788 A.2d 174, 176 (citations omitted). Nigro failed to mention the manual in his original motion to suppress, did not argue for its suppression at the suppression hearing, and, consequently, the court's suppression order did not address the issue. Although a court has discretion to entertain an untimely motion when good cause is shown, see M.R.Crim. P. 41A(b), Nigro made no such showing, and the court did not err in refusing to suppress the manual. Even if the issue were timely raised, Nigro's argument that the manual was suppressible as fruit of the Miranda violation must fail because the manual inevitably would have been discovered and seized once Nigro was searched incident to his lawful arrest. See State v. Nadeau, 2010 ME 71, ¶ 38, 1 A.3d 445, 459-60 (discussing the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule); State v. Foy, 662 A.2d 238, 241 (Me.1995) (applying the search incident to arrest doctrine). The entry is: Judgment affirmed.