Summary
The Maine Supreme Judicial Court considered whether evidence obtained after a warrantless and unconstitutional entry into an attached garage was admissible following the defendant's mother's consent to enter the home. The majority held that the voluntary consent sufficiently dissipated the taint of the prior entry, applying the factors concerning attenuation under Brown v. Illinois and State v. Boyington, and affirmed the judgment. Justice Levy dissented, concluding that the close temporal connection and purposeful nature of the entry required suppression.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the officer's warrantless entry into the attached garage violated the Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 5 of the Maine Constitution.
- Whether the defendant's mother's subsequent voluntary consent to enter the home sufficiently attenuated the connection between the illegal garage entry and the evidence obtained inside the home so that the evidence was admissible.
Holdings
- The attached garage was within the curtilage of the home and was protected from unreasonable warrantless entry under the Fourth Amendment and Article I, section 5 of the Maine Constitution. Because the garage was not a normal route of access for visitors and no warrant or exigent circumstance justified the entry, the officer's entry violated the defendant's constitutional rights.
- The mother's voluntary consent to enter the home sufficiently attenuated the taint of the officer's prior illegal garage entry, so the evidence obtained after the consent was not subject to exclusion. The suppression court therefore properly denied the motion to suppress.
Key quotations
“Although the curtilage of the home is protected from unreasonable entries and searches and the dwelling itself may not be entered, absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, the State is allowed to intrude into the home's curtilage under certain circumstances, including accessing the entry to a dwelling while conducting legitimate law enforcement activities.” (854 A.2d at 865)
“Evidence gained after a constitutional violation must be excluded unless the connection between the evidence and the constitutional violation is "sufficiently weak."” (854 A.2d at 866)
“Because the officer did not act with a flagrant disregard for the constitution, and this factor outweighs the close proximity of the improper entry and the discovery of the evidence, the suppression court could properly determine that the taint of the illegal entry dissipated when the officer received consent to enter from Trusiani's mother.” (854 A.2d at 868)
Factual background
Police received a report that a Ford pickup truck was being operated erratically and later observed the truck make a dangerous turn before locating it at Trusiani's residence. An officer entered the attached garage through a passage door without a warrant; the suppression court found that the State had not established that the door was open and that no exigent circumstances justified the entry. After the officer knocked on the interior door, Trusiani's mother invited him into the home, identified Trusiani as the driver, and indicated that he was in the bathroom. Trusiani later emerged, admitted driving, performed field sobriety tests, and was arrested for operating under the influence.
Procedural history
The Superior Court in Sagadahoc County convicted Trusiani of aggravated operating under the influence and operating beyond a license restriction after he entered a conditional guilty plea. The suppression court found that the officer's warrantless entry into the garage violated the Constitution but concluded that the defendant's mother's subsequent consent to enter the home purged the taint and denied the motion to suppress. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed.