State of Maine v. Maldonado

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, ss. CRIMINAL ACTION
DOCKET NO. CR-20-1479

STATE OF MAINE )
)
Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING
) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
V. ) SUPPRESS
)
DAVID MALDONADO )
)
Defendant )

Before the court is Defendant David Maldonado's motion to suppress evidence obtained
pursuant to a warrant containing a mistaken address in its no-knock provision. The Defendant's
motion is based solely on article I, section 5 of the Maine State Constitution, which prohibits
unreasonable searches and seizures. 1
I. Facts
The parties have stipulated to the following facts:
On July 24, 2020 Detective Benjamin Murtiff applied for a no-knock warrant for 15 Middle
Street, Apartment 4, in Augusta. Factual Stipulations in re Motion to Suppress ,r 1. The
magistrate issued the warrant requested with a no-knock provision, and Det. Murtiff and other
officers executed the search warrant at 15 Middle Street, Apartment 4, on July 24. ,r,r 1-2.
On August 12, 2020 Det. Murtiff drafted an affidavit in support of a search warrant for 85
Gage Street, Apartment 2, in Augusta. ,r 3. The affidavit established probable cause, and the
magistrate issued the warrant with a requested no-knock provision. ,r,r 3-4. The warrant
contained adequate particularity and was executed, without knocking or announcing, on August
12 at 85 Gage Street, Apartment 2. ,r,r 7, 10. Defendant Maldonado was inside the searched
premises, and officers, relying on evidence obtained in the search, charged him with various
crimes. ,r 14.
The warrant contains a drafting error, originating from Det. Murtiff. ,r 15. The no-knock
provision references an incorrect address: "Furthermore, [the magistrate] authorize[s] this to be a
'no-knock' warrant wherein law enforcement may execute this search warrant without prior
notification to the occupants of 15 Middle Street, Apartment 4 ...." ,r 8. The affidavit had not
contained this mistake, and the warrant makes no other reference to the incorrect address. ,r,r 6, 9.
The parties also stipulate the following:

1
"Unreasonable searches prohibited. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions
from all unreasonable searches and seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or seize any person or thing, shall
issue without a special designation of the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized, nor without
probable cause -- supported by oath or affirmation." Me. Const. a11. 1, § 5.

1
There was no bad faith by Det. Murtiff in making the error. ~ 16. Det. Murtiff did not mislead
the judge with false information or a reckless disregard for the truth. if 17. The warrant was
issued with probable cause and was not facially deficient. ~~ 20-21. Det. Murtiff reasonably
believed he was in compliance with the relevant requirements of the federal and Maine
constitutions.~ 22. The Court infers from the record that the judge did not notice the drafting
error. However, the paiiies stipulated that he did not abandon his judicial role.~ 18.
II. Discussion
The parties agree that the face of the warrant authorized a search of 85 Gage Street,
Apartment 2. It did not, however, authorize a no-knock search of 85 Gage Street, Apartment 2. 2
The parties further agree that under the Fourth Amendment there is no federal remedy excluding
evidence obtained from an unannounced search. They focus their arguments on article I, § 5, a
provision in the state constitution resembling the Fourth Amendment. 3
With respect to the motion to suppress, two issues arise: first, whether article I, § 5 requires
that officers knock and announce themselves before entering an area to be searched, and second,
if so, whether article I, § 5 requires exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of that knock­
and-announce rule. The Defense argues that the Maine Constitution does protect against
unannounced searches and offers exclusion of evidence as an appropriate remedy. The State
counters that exclusion of evidence is not an available remedy under article I, § 5. 4
This Court concludes that article I, § 5 does protect against unannounced searches such that
officers must knock and announce before they execute a search warrant. The "knock-and­
announce" rule has long existed in the federal common law, and in 1995, the U.S. Supreme
Court recognized it as flowing from the Fourth Amendment. Wilson v. Ark., 514 U.S. 927,929
(1995). Before Wilson v. Arkansas, the Law Court declined to recognize such a provision
flowing from article I,§ 5. State v. Hider, 649 A.2d 14, 15 (Me. 1994). Since these cases were
decided, the Law Court has had the opportunity to recognize a state knock-and-announce rule but
declined to address it. See State v. Reynoso-Hernandez, 2003 ME 19, ~ 6 n.2, 816 A.2d 826.
However, the Law Court has also stated that article I, § 5 generally offers the same protection as
the Fourth Amendment. E.g. State v. Patterson, 2005 ME 26, ~ 10, 868 A.2d 188; State v.
Gulick, 2000 ME 170, ~ 9 n.3, 759 A.2d 1085. Moreover, recent Law Court decisions have noted
the possibility that article I, § 5 in fact offers greater protection than the Fourth Amendment. E.g.
Hutchinson, 2009 ME 44, ~ 18 n.9, 969 A.2d 923; State v. Glover, 2014 ME 49, ~ 10 n.2, 89
A.3d 1077. Because aiiicle I,§ 5 is at least coextensive with the Fourth Amendment, and the
Supreme Court recognized the Fourth Amendment knock-and-announce rule after the Law Court
decided Hider, this Court concludes that a state knock-and-announce rule flows independently
from article I, § 5.

2
The State argues that the drafting error should not invalidate the entire warrant. The Court agrees. The warrant
unambiguously authorizes a search of 85 Gage Street, Apartment 2. The drafting error only affects the no-knock
provision.
3
Compare Me. Const. att. I, § 5, supra note 1 with U.S. Const. amend. IV ("The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.").
4 The parties also argue as to the existence ofa good faith exception under the state constitution. The Court does not

address this argument because it resolves the motion on other grounds.

2
Having recognized a state knock-and-announce rule, the Court now takes up the issue of
whether exclusion of evidence is a remedy for its violation. The State points to the federal
reasoning against suppressing evidence obtained in violation of the knock-and-announce rule and
Law Court precedent which has traditionally and generally adhered to federal Fouiih
Amendment precedent where article I, § 5 issues are raised. The Defendant argues that the state
constitution supports suppression, despite federal caselaw.
Under the "primacy approach," when a state constitutional issue is properly raised and
developed, Maine courts interpret the state constitution before relying on analogous federal
constitutional law. State v. Larrivee, 479 A.2d 347,349 (1984). Maine courts may use federal
decisions as "helpful guides" for understanding our state constitution, but ultimately the state
document controls. State v. Flick, 495 A.2d 339, 344 (1985). The State argues that the Law Court
has adopted Fourth Amendment precedent for issues under article I, section 5, and highlights two
cases-State v. Hutchinson, 2009 ME 44, 969 A.2d 923, and State v. Glover, 2014 ME 49, 89
A.3d 1077-in which the Law Court has used federal caselaw in its analysis of unreasonable
search and seizure. These cases did consider the state and federal protections in conjunction.
However, in the Court's view, these cases should not be overread to support the State's position
that the Law Court has determined that federal precedent shall be used for resolving all article I,
§ 5 claims. In addition, neither case considers the knock-and-announce rule, and, as noted
above, both cases explicitly recognize that the Maine Constitution may offer additional
protections not available under the federal constitution. Hutchinson, 2009 ME 44, ~ 18 n. 9, 969
A.2d 923; Glover, 2014 ME 49, ~ 10 n.2, 89 A.3d 1077. The Law Couti has yet to suppress
evidence based solely on article I, § 5. Presumably, however, where that provision and the
Fourth Amendment offer at least coterminous protections, they also offer at least coterminous
remedies.
The remedy for unlawful searches and other Fourth Amendment violations is generally
suppression of evidence. Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 393 (1914); Mapp v. Ohio, 367
U.S. 643, 655 (1961); State v. Akers, 2021 ME 43, ~ 40,259 A.3d 127; c.f M.R. Crim. P.
41A(a); M.R. Crim. P. 41U). However, the relevant Fourth Amendment precedent holds that
knock-and-announce violations do not warrant evidentiary suppression. The Supreme Court in
Weeks v. United States, deciding evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment was
inadmissible at trial, explained, "[t]he efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to
punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great
principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their
embodiment in the fundamental law of the land." 232 U.S. 383, 393. Since then, the Court has
explained that the same reasoning does not hold true for the federal protection against knock­
and-announce violations: "Until a valid warrant has issued, citizens are entitled to shield 'their
persons, houses, papers, and effects,' U.S. Const., Arndt. 4, from the governn1ent's scrutiny.
Exclusion of the evidence obtained by a warrantless search vindicates that entitlement. The
interests protected by the knock-and-announce requirement are quite different ...." Hudson v.
Michigan, 547 U.S. 586, 593 (2006).

In Hudson, the Court considered the benefits the knock-and-announce rule and the
drawbacks of exclusion of evidence. For the former, it noted the "protection of human life and
limb," the "opportunity to comply with the law and to avoid the destruction of property

3
occasioned by a forcible entry, and protection of " privacy and dignity that can be destroyed by a
sudden entrance." Id. at 594 (internal quotations omitted). It then stated that the exclusionary rule
should not apply to knock-and-announce violations because exclusion of evidenced es nothing
to vindicate these privacy, property, or safety interests. Id. In addition, the Court was greatly
concerned with the costs of evidentiary exclusion, including "the risk of releasing dangerous
criminals," "a constant flood of alleged failures to observe the rule " and "officers' refraining
from timely entry after knocking and announcing." Id. at 595.

Here, the Prosecution's argument that courts must apply the federal exclusionary rule
jurisprudence to the state constitution undervalues the primacy approach, which recognizes that
the Maine Constit1.1tion operates independently of the federal constitution and that courts must
examine Maine history and values when interpreting its constitution. ee State v. Chan, 2020 ME
91, ~~ 32-34, 236 A.3d 471 (Connors and Jabar, JJ. concurring). In the Court's view the Law
Court has the authority to rely. upon federal law, but it also retains the authority to inteqJret and
apply the Maine Constitution if it concludes that it provides more protections and rights for
Maine citizens than the United States Constitution. In other words, the Law Comi is not required
to exclusively rely upon Fourth Amendment precedent as controlling or as a default.
The Defendant urges this Court to create a remedy for violation of article I, § 5 and argues
that the appropriate would be suppress.ion of evidence. In support of his argument, Defendant
points to the aforementioned expressions in recent caselaw that the Maine Constitution may
provide broader protections for Maine citizens than federal law. However, these expressions
from the Law Cowt are difficult to reconcile with other precedent stating otherwise. See Stale v.
Fredette, 411 A.2d 65 , 67 (Me. 1979) ("It has been the consistent position of this court not to
adopt an exclusionary rule pmsuant to our Constitution when the United States upreme Court
has not applied such a rule to the states .... "); State v. Foisy 384 A.2d 42, 44 n.2 (Me. J978)
("This Court, however, has consistently declined to provide an exclusionary rule sanction
pursuant to our tate Constitution where the exclusionary rule mandated by the 4th and 14th
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States does not requ ire the exclusion of
evidence.").

The Cowt agrees with the Defendant that the contours of Maine's constitution in light of
Maine values may appropriately be considered. And the Court would note that while some states
interpreting their own constitutions have followed fede ral precedent regarding a knock-and­
announce remedy 5 several states have considered the same issue and decided to exclude
evidence obtained in violation of a state knock-and-announce rule. 6 For a number of reasons, the

s See, e.g., State v. Bemb1y, 90 N. E.3d 891 , 900 (Ohio 2017) (declining to depart from Fou1th Amendment
jurisprudence in considering the meaning of the state constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches); People v.
Glorioso 924 N.E.2d I 153, 1159, 1163-4 (JI!. Ct. App. 20 I0) (following the " lockstep doctrine' such that absent
certain requirements, federal Fou1th Amendment precedent controls interpretation of asimi lar state constitutional
provision)· State v. l?oberson, 225 P.3d 1156, 11 59 (Ariz. Ct. App. 20'10) (differentiating warrantless unreasonable
searches from knock-and-announce violations).
6
See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. Crompton, 682 A.2d 286, 290 (Pa. 1995) (ho lding "the remedy for noncompliance
with the knock and announce rule is always suppression"); State v. Attaway 870 P.2d 103, 112 n.6 (N.M. 1994)
(ho lding that "(i]f an officer does not knock and announce prior to forcible entry and exigent circumstances are not
present, the truits of that search would be excluded as a violation of the general constitutional reasonableness
requirement"); N.J v. Caronna, No. A-0580-20, 202 1N.J. Super. LEXIS 137, at *6 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Nov.
3, 2021) (ho lding that "[c]ompliance with a knock-and-announce warrant requirement is a critica l predicate for a

4
Court perceives a basis for concluding that the Law Court could be moving toward the
approaches taken by courts in Pennsylvania, New Mexico, New Jersey, and Delaware.

First, the unique state context of article I, § 5 must inform its interpretation. While the
purpose of the federal exclusionary rule is to deter officer misconduct, Hudson v. Mich., 547
U.S. 586, 591 (2006), in Maine it may be broader. See Rees, 2000 ME 55, ~ 44, 748 A.2d 976
(Saufley, J., dissenting) (stating that the exclusionary rule was created to "deter improper
conduct by the State and to prevent the state from using its ill-gotten gains against a citizen"); c.f
United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 33 8, 357 ( 1974) (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("The
exclusionary rule, if not perfect, accomplished the twin goals of enabling the judiciary to avoid
the taint of partnership in official lawlessness and of assuring the people - all potential victims of
unlawful government conduct - that the government would not profit from its lawless
behavior...."). As applied in Maine, exclusion of evidence obtained by unauthorized
unannounced searches might be warranted, for example, to remedy the injury to an individual's
constitutionally protected privacy or to preserve public trust in government.
Moreover, the Law Court has recently noted and separately analyzed the goals behind the
federal and state constitutions. This approach, if it continues, would have the effect of
maintaining the sovereign authority of the Maine Constitution. In nothing that under both federal
and state constitutions a warrantless search is generally unreasonable unless a recognized warrant
exception applies, the Law Court in one case specifically emphasized values specifically rooted
in the Maine Constitution. It held that the federal test for the administrative inspection exception
to the warrant requirement should not be applied so strictly that "we fail to account for the core
state constitutional value that all searches and seizures must not be 'unreasonable."' State v.
Melvin, 2008 ME 118, ~~ 6, 13,955 A.2d 245.
In addition, the Maine Legislature's recently imposed limitations on the availability of no­
knock warrants. This certainly expresses Mainers' concern with safety and privacy rights. The
Legislature passed a law in June 2021 that limits no-knock warrants to circumstances in which
there is an "imminent risk of death or bodily harm ... verified by the issuing authority" or
another "recognized exception to the warrant requirement, including, but not limited to, exigent
circumstances." L.D. 1171 (130th Legis. 2021) (enacted at 15 M.R.S. § 57). 7 The Court finds
that the no-knock provision that Defendant Maldonado challenges would have violated this law
if issued today, even if it contained the correct address.
Two related bills were proposed - one that would ban no-knock warrants outright, which did
not pass, L.D. 1127 (130th Legis. 2021), and another, which did pass, requiring departments to
adopt written policies on the execution of unannounced search warrants. L.D. 1043 (130th Legis.
2021) (enacted at 25 MRSA §2803-B(l)). Almost all proponents and opponents of the three

reasonable search under our State Constitution"); State v. Upshur, No. I 0030034 I 0, 201 I Del. Super. LEXIS I 70, at
* I 3-16 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. I 3, 2011) (recognizing that mere syntactical differences may indicate a desire to
differentiate a state protection from the Fourth Amendment and holding that exclusion is the proper remedy for state
knock-and-announce violations).
7
In its draft form, L.D. 1 I 7 I created a Class E crime for its violation. ln its final form, the law does not charge
violating officers with a crime, and no other statutory remedy is included. Testimony suggested that potential
remedies could be suppression of evidence, suspension or revocation of officer credentials or licensing, or damages
liability. An Act to Curtail 'No-Knock' Warrants: Hearing on l.D. 1171 Before the J Standing Comm. on Crim.
Just. and Pub. Safety, I 30th Leg is. (2021) (testimonies of Major Brian Scott for the Maine State Police and Dept. of
Pub. Safety and Tina Nadeau for the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers).

5
proposed bills were moved by the real risk of danger such no-knock warrants can pose to
civilians and law enforcement. Many people who testified referenced the death of Breonna
Taylor, a young Kentucky woman accidentally killed by police in an unannounced search of a
home in 2020. 8 Nearly every testifying party on all three bills agreed that no-knock warrants
should be limited to rare occasions when the danger they pose can be justified.
The renewed value the Law Court has placed on the Maine Constitution, along with the
recognition by the Maine Legislature of the real dangers to the public created by unannounced
searches, suggest that a judicial remedy for violation of article I, § 5 could be necessary ­
whether by suppression under M.R. Crim. P. 41A(a), or otherwise. However, the issue of
whether violation of a state knock-and-announce rule warrants evidentiary suppression is
ultimately one that must be made Law Court or the Maine Legislature. Given the current state of
Maine caselaw, this Court does not believe it has the authority to create the remedy requested by
the Defendant.

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to suppress is DENIED.

Dated: 0 ~ c.. . '> , 2021
Justice, Superior Court

A true copy

~~;k~
Clerk of Courts

8
See, e.g., An Act to Curtail 'No-Knock' Warrants: Hearing on L.D. 1171 Before the J Standing Comm. on Crim.
Just. and Pub. Safety, 130th Legis. (2021) (testimonies in support by William Faulkingham, Attorney General Aaron
Frey, Tina Nadeau on behalfofthe Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and testimonies against by
Matt Bernstein, Monique Boutin, Danielle Kroot, Luke Saindon); An Act Concerning the Unannounced Execution of
Search Warrants: Hearing on L.D. 1043 Before the J. Standing Comm. On Crim. Just. and Pub. Safety, 130th Legis.
(2021) (testimonies in support by Attorney General Aaron Frey, Tina Nadeau, Rep. Danny Costain); An Act to
Prohibit the Use of "No-Knock" Warrants: Hearing on L.D. 1127 Before the J. Standing Comm. on Crim. Just. and
Pub. Safety, 130th Leg is. (2021) (testimonies in support by Matt Bernstein, Tina Nadeau, Amy Roeder, Michael
Kebede on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, and testimony against by Major Brian Scott, Sheriff Robert
Young on behalf of Maine Sheriffs Association, Chief Jared Mills on behalf of Maine Chiefs of Police Ass'n). The
general sentiment in testimony on all three bills was concern with balancing the safety risks of unannounced
searches with risks that may be increased in limited situations by law enforcement's announcing its presence.

6
STATE OF MAINE CRIMINAL DOCKET
v. KENNEBEC, ss.
DAVID MALDONADO Docket No KENCD-CR-2020-01479
154 GREEN ST APT 6
AUGUSTA ME 04330 DOCKET RECORD

DOB: 04/24/1994
Attorney: ANDREW WRIGHT State's Attorney: KATIE SIBLEY
ANDREW WRIGHT ATTORNEY AT LAW
16 UNION STREET SUITE 104
BRUNSWICK ME 04011
APPOINTED 08/14/2020

Filing Document : CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: FELONY (CLASS A,B,C)
Filing Date : 08/14/2020

Charge(s)

1 AGGRAVATED TRAFFICKING OF SCHEDULED DRUGS 08/12/2020 AUGUSTA
Seq 9044 17-A 1105-A ( 1) (C-1) (1) Class A
MURTIFF / AUG

2 AGGRAVATED TRAFFICKING OF SCHEDULED DRUGS 08/12/2020 AUGUSTA
Seq 13783 17-A 1105-A(l) (M) Class A
MURTIFF / AUG

3 AGGRAVATED TRAFFICKING OF SCHEDULED DRUGS 08/12/2020 AUGUSTA
Seq 9044 17-A 1105-A(l) (C-1) (1) Class A
MURTIFF / AUG

4 AGGRAVATED TRAFFICKING OF SCHEDULED DRUGS 08/12/2020 AUGUSTA
Seq 9050 17-A 1105-A(l) (D) Class A
MURTIFF / AUG

5 AGGRAVATED TRAFFICKING OF SCHEDULED DRUGS 08/12/2020 AUGUSTA
Seq 9044 17-A 1105-A (1) (C-1) (1) Class A
MURTIFF / AUG

6 ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM 08/12/2020 AUGUSTA
Seq 11378 15 393 (1) (A-1) Class C
MURTIFF / AUG

7 CRIMINAL FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY 08/12/2020 AUGUSTA
Seq 7049 15 5826 Class U Charged with INDICTMENT on Supplem
MURTIFF / AUG

8 CRIMINAL FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY 08/12/2020 AUGUSTA
Seq 7049 15 5826 Class U Charged with INDICTMENT on Supplem
MURTIFF / AUG

Docket Events:

08/14/2020 FILING DOCUMENT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 08/14/2020

08/14/2020 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6
CR_200, Rev. 07/15 Page 1 of 7 Printed on: 12/14/2021
DAVID MALDONADO
KENCD-CR-2020-01479
DOCKET RECORD
HEARING - INITIAL APPEARANCE SCHEDULED FOR 08/14/2020 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 1

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
08/17/2020 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6
HEARING - INITIAL APPEARANCE HELD ON 08/14/2020
GEOFFREY RUSHLAU, JUDGE
Attorney: LISA WHITTIER
DA: KATIE SIBLEY
Defendant Present in Court
08/17/2020 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6
PLEA - NO ANSWER ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 08/14/2020

08/17/2020 BAIL BOND - $25,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 08/14/2020
GEOFFREY RUSHLAU, JUDGE
NO U/P OF D/DW/F R/S/T W/0 AS OR PC; NOD/I CONTACT W/ JESSE CURTIS 05/20/67; THOMAS
KNOWLTON 09/10/59 AND NOT ENTER ANY R/E/E; NOT LEAVE STATE OF MAINE; NOT RETURN TO 85 GAGE
STREET AUGUSTA, ME; CURFEW OF 9PM - 8AM EXCEPT FOR WORK/EMPLOYMENT; MAY BE REVIEWED
08/17/2020 BAIL BOND - CASH BAIL BOND COND RELEASE ISSUED ON 08/14/2020
GEOFFREY RUSHLAU, JUDGE
08/17/2020 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6
HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 11/10/2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Room No. 1

08/17/2020 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6
ORDER - COURT ORDER ENTERED ON 08/14/2020
GEOFFREY RUSHLAU, JUDGE
ORDER ON COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL
08/17/2020 Party(s): DAVID MALDONADO
ATTORNEY - APPOINTED ORDERED ON 08/14/2020

Attorney: ANDREW WRIGHT
08/17/2020 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6
HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ELECTRONICALLY ON 08/17/2020

08/31/2020 MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 08/31/2020

SENT TO ATTY
09/04/2020 MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 09/04/2020

09/04/2020 HEARING - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL SCHEDULED FOR 09/09/2020 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No . 1

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
09/04/2020 HEARING - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL NOTICE SENT ELECTRONICALLY ON 09/04/2020

09/10/2020 HEARING - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL HELD ON 09/09/2020
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
Attorney: ANDREW WRIGHT
DA: KATIE SIBLEY
Defendant Present in Court
09/10/2020 MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL GRANTED ON 09/09/2020
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL IN PART
09/10/2020 MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL DENIED ON 09/09/2020
WILLIAM STOKES, JUSTICE
CR_200, Rev. 07/15 Page 2 of 7 Printed on: 12/14/2021
DAVID MALDONADO
KENCD-CR-2020-01479
DOCKET RECORD
COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL IN PART
09/10/2020 BAIL BOND - $20,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND AMENDED ON 09/09/2020
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
NO U/P OF D/DW/F R/S/T W/0 AS OR PC; NOD/I CONTACT W/ JESSE CURTIS 05/20/67, THOMAS
KNOWLTON 09/10/59 AND NOT ENTER ANY R/E/E; NOT TO LEAVE STATE OF MAINE; NOT RETURN TO 85
GAGE STREET AUGUSTA; 9PM-8AM EXCEPT FOR WORK/EMPLOYMENT
09/25/2020 MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 09/18/2020

COPY SENT TO ATTORNEY
10/22/2020 MOTION - OTHER MOTION FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 10/13/2020

MOTION TO REVEAL CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT
10/22/2020 OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 10/19/2020

STATES OBJECTION TO MOTION TO REVEAL CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT
10/27/2020 MOTION - OTHER MOTION DENIED ON 10/22/2020
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
MOTION TO REVEAL CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT
10/28/2020 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6
OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 09/04/2020

DA: KATIE SIBLEY
NOTICE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE SW20-73
10/28/2020 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - INDICTMENT FILED ON 10/23/2020

10/28/2020 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 11/24/2020 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 1

10/28/2020 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT NOTICE SENT ELECTRONICALLY ON 10/28/2020

11/10/2020 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6
HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 11/10/2020
WILLIAM STOKES, JUSTICE
Attorney: ANDREW WRIGHT
DA: KATIE SIBLEY
11/10/2020 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 01/19/2021 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 1

11/10/2020 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ELECTRONICALLY ON 11/10/2020

12/31/2020 OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 12/29/2020

DEF MOTION TO AMEND BAIL. SENT COPY TO ATTY ON RECORD.
01/04/2021 OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 12/31/2020

MOTION TO AMEND BAIL FILED BY DEF
EMAILED TO DEF ATTY 1/4/21
01/04/2021 OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 12/31/2020

MOTION TO AMEND BAIL FILED BY DEF
CR_ 200, Rev. 07/15 Page 3 of 7 Printed on: 12/14/2021
DAVID MALDONADO
KENCD-CR-2020-01479
DOCKET RECORD
EMAILED TO DEF ATTY 1/4/2021
01/04/2021 OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 12/31/2020

MOTION TO AMEND BAIL FILED BY DEF
EMAILED TO DEF ATTY 1/4/21
01/12/2021 MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/07/2021

01/12/2021 HEARING - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL SCHEDULED FOR 01/29/2021 at 01:00 p.m . in Room No. 1

ZOOM W/ IN CUSTODIES
01/12/2021 HEARING - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL NOTICE SENT ELECTRONICALLY ON 01/12/2021

01/19/2021 OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 01/19/2021

DA: KATIE SIBLEY
STATES OBJECTION TO MOTION TO AMEND BAIL
01/19/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT NOT HELD ON 11/24/2020

01/20/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 01/19/2021
M MICHAELA MURPHY, JUSTICE
01/29/2021 HEARING - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL HELD ON 01/29/2021
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
Defendant Present in Court
01/29/2021 MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL DENIED ON 01/29/2021
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
01/29/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 03/03/2021 at 03:00 p.m. in Room No. 1

02/01/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ELECTRONICALLY ON 02/01/2021

02/10/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 02/22/2021 at 10:30 a.m. in Room No. 1

ZOOM
02/10/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT NOTICE SENT ELECTRONICALLY ON 02/10/2021

02/18/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 02/11/2021

O2 / 2 2 / 2 o21 Charge (s) : 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8
HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 02/22/2021
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
Defendant Present in Court

DEFENDANT INFORMED OF CHARGES.
02/22/2021 Charge (s) : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
PLEA - NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY COURT ON 02/22/2021
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
CR_200, Rev. 07/15 Page 4 of 7 Printed on: 12/14/2021
DAVID MALDONADO
KENCD-CR-2020-01479
DOCKET RECORD
02/22/2021 Charge(s): 7,8
PLEA - DENY ENTERED BY COURT ON 02/22/2021
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
02/24/2021 OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 02/22/2021

STATES RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS WITH MEMORANDA
02/26/2021 OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 02/22/2021

DA: KATIE SIBLEY
STATE'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS WITH MEMORANDA
03/05/2021 Charge(s): l,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE HELD ON 03/03/2021
M MICHAELA MURPHY, JUSTICE
Attorney: ANDREW WRIGHT
DA: KATIE SIBLEY
03/05/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 05/05/2021 at 09:45 a.m . in Room No. 1

03/16/2021 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 04/26/2021 at 02:30 p.m. in Room No. 4

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
03/16/2021 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ELECTRONICALLY ON 03/16/2021

04/22/2021 Charge(s): l,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 04/22/2021

04/22/2021 OTHER FILING - NTS OF EMAIL FILING/RESP DEADL FILED ON 04/22/2021

04/23/2021 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED BY STATE ON 04/23/2021

04/26/2021 OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 04/26/2021

CHANGE OF PHONE NUMBER
05/03/2021 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 04/23/2021

COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
05/03/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 04/23/2021

COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
05/03/2021 BAIL BOND - $20,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 04/26/2021

Bail Receipt Type: CR
Bail Amt: $20,000
Receipt Type: CK
Date Bailed: 04/23/2021 Prvdr Name: IVAN LUGO
Rtrn Name: IVAN LUGO

05/03/2021 BAIL BOND - CASH BAIL BOND COND RELEASE ISSUED ON 04/23/2021

NOT USE OR POSSESS ILLEGAL DRUGS OR THEIR DERIVATIVES, DANGEROUS WEAPONS, FIREARMS, IN
ORDER TO DETERMINE IF SHE/HE HAS VIOLATED ANY PROHIBITION OF THIS BOND REGARDING ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES, ILLEGAL DRUG OR DANGEROUS WEAPONS, SHE/HE WILL SUBMIT TO SEARCH OF HER/HIS
CR_200, Rev. 07/15 Page 5 of 7 Printed on: 12/14/2021
DAVID MALDONADO
KENCD-CR-2020-01479
DOCKET RECORD
PERSON, VEHICLE AND RESIDENCE AND IFAPPLICABLE, TO CHEMICAL TESTS; AT ANYTIME WITHOUT
ARTCULABLE SUSPICION OR PROBABLE CAUSE NO CONTACT JESSE CURTIS,THOMAS KNOWLES, NOT TO
LEAVE STATE OOF MAINE CURFEW 9PM-8AM EXCEPT FOR WORK
Date Bailed: 04/23/2021
05/03/2021 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS CONTINUED ON 04/26/2021

05/03/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - STATUS CONFERENCE CONTINUED ON 04/26/2021

05/03/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 06/07/2021 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 1

DEFENDANT GIVEN THIS DATE AND TIME ON BAIL BOND. THIS IS AN ARRAIGNMENT DATE, NEEDS TO BE
SET FOR DISPO CONF.
05/03/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE NOT HELD ON 05/03/2021

DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN THIS DATE ON BAIL BOND. SHOULD BE SET FOR DISPO DATE
05/26/2021 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 07/01/2021 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 3

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
05/26/2021 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ELECTRONICALLY ON 05/26/2021

07/07/2021 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOT HELD ON 07/01/2021

07/07/2021 HEARING - CONFERENCE HELD ON 07/01/2021
M MICHAELA MURPHY I JUSTICE
Attorney: ANDREW WRIGHT
DA : KATIE SIBLEY
BRIEF TO BE FILED BY ATTY. WRIGHT BY 7/30/21. REBUTTAL,TO BE FILED BY 8/13/21.
07/07/2021 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 07/20/2021 at 02:00 p.m. in Room No. 3

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL PER JUSTICE
MURPHY
07/07/2021 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ELECTRONICALLY ON 07/07/2021

07/15/2021 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOT HELD ON 07/15/2021

JURY TRIAL DAY
07/16/2021 OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 07/16/2021

Attorney: ANDREW WRIGHT
DA: KATIE SIBLEY
FACTUAL STIPULATIONS IN RE MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY THE STATE
07/20/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 07/20/2021

W/J. MURPHY ON FACTUAL STIPULATIONS
07/20/2021 CASE STATUS - CASE FILE LOCATION ON 07/20/2021

UNDER ADVISEMENT W/J. MURPHY
08/04/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 08/04/2021
CR_200, Rev. 07/15 Page 6 of 7 Printed on: 12/14/2021
DAVID MALDONADO
KENCD-CR-2020-01479
DOCKET RECORD

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT . EMAILED
TO JUSTICE MURPHY THIS DATE.
08/17/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED BY STATE ON 08/11/2021

EXTEND TIME TO FILE REBUTTAL MEMORANDA TO 8/20/2021 NO OBJECTION BY
COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT
08/20/2021 OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 08/19/2021

DA: KATIE SIBLEY
STATE'S REBUTTAL MEMORANDA IN RE MOTION TO SUPPRESS
08/27/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 08/17/2021
M MICHAELA MURPHY, JUSTICE
TIME FOR BRIEFS IS EXTENDED TO 8/20/21. COPY OF ORDER
TO COUNSEL & DA
12/14/2021 ORDER - COURT ORDER FILED ON 12/03/2021
M MICHAELA MURPHY, JUSTICE
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
12/14/2021 Charge(s): 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS DENIED ON 12/03/2021
M MICHAELA MURPHY, JUSTICE
COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
12/14/2021 CASE STATUS - CASE FILE RETURNED ON 12/14/2021

12/14/2021 MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL GRANTED ON 09/09/2020
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL GRANTED IN PART
12/14/2021 MOTION - MOTION TO AMEND BAIL DENIED ON 09/09/2020
WILLIAM STOKES , JUSTICE
COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL IN PART

A TRUE COPY
ATTEST:

CR_ 200, Rev. 07/15 Page 7 of 7 Printed on: 12/14/2021