State of Maine v. Ireland

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
WALDO, SS. DOCKET NO. CR-18-387

STATE OF MAINE )
)
) ORDER DENYING
v. ) MOTION TO SUPPRESS
)
JERRY IRELAND )
Defendant )

The defendant filed a Motion to Suppress evidence seized from the
defendant's property as the result of a search undertaken subsequent to a
search warrant having been issued. The pending motion challenges several
aspects of the warrant relating to the application for it, the warrant itself, and
its ultimate execution. A hearing on the defendant's motion was held before
the Court at which two witnesses provided testimony and additional exhibits
were admitted for the Court's consideration. Subsequent to the hearing, the
parties provided written closing arguments.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The pending Complaint against the defendant asserts a number of counts
alleging Cruelty to Animals in violation of Title 17 M.R.S.A. § 1031 (1 )(B).
At the hearing, Rae-Ann Demos, a District Humane Agent with the Animal
Welfare Program in the Department of Agriculture, testified with respect to
her involvement in both the application for the search warrant which was
issued, and her underlying involvement in the investigation of the defendant.

I
Ms. Demos was the affiant of the affidavit submitted in support of the
request for a search warrant in this case. The affidavit and request for a
search waiTant was submitted to, and reviewed and approved by District
Court Judge Sparaco on March 27, 2018.

Ms. Demos, in her affidavit, and as paii of her testimony at the motion
hearing described her own personal involvement in visiting the defendant's
fatm location prior to March 27, 2018. Specifically, the affidavit refers to at
least five separate occasions between November 16, 2017 and March 21,
2018 when Ms. Demos had personally been to Mr. Ireland's farm location to
address concerns regarding animal care and treatment issues there. The
affidavit also describes other occasions in that same time-frame where a
different Animal Control Officer was also present at the defendant's fatm
location to address animal care and treatment issues. Ms. Demos also
personally paiiicipated in the execution of the search warrant at the
defendant's propetiy on March 28, 2018.

The affidavit submitted to the reviewing judge, and which was included as
Joint Exhibit 1 at the motion hearing, also attached four photographs of the
specific portion of the defendant's propetiy where it was believed that the
mistreatment of the defendant's animals was occurring.

The defendant's farm was located in a rural area of Swanville, Maine on the
Nickerson Road. The affidavit in support of the request for a search warrant
did not include a specific street address for the defendant's farm location.
The search warrant itself which was proffered to the reviewing judge did

2
include a reference to 361 Nickerson Rd. in Swanville in the section of the
watTant identifying the "place(s) or person(s) to be searched." Testimony
presented at the motion hearing suggests that the defendant's fann prope1iy
included two contiguous parcels along Nickerson Road at both 361 and 282
Nickerson Rd. The defendant testified that the property ultimately seized
was taken from the parcel at 282 Nickerson Rd.

The affidavit in support of the search wan-ant specifically asked for the
authority to "remove any live, dead or unborn animals from the property that
are being or have been deprived of necessary sustenance, proper shelter, and
humanely clean conditions." The search wan-ant identified the "Prope1iy or
article(s) to be searched for" as, "Evidence of the crime(s) of animal
cruelty." The items actually seized from the defendant's prope1iy, when the
warrant was executed on March 28, 2018, was limited to five deceased pigs
and one live pig. Ms. Demos testified that the live pig which was seized was
in an area where there was no food or water, and that that pig's body score
was 2.5 on a 1 to 9 scale measuring the level of emaciation. The five
deceased pigs which were seized were all excavated from an area on the
defendant's prope1iy which was described in the search wan-ant affidavit and
depicted in the pictures attached to the affidavit. Ms. Demos testified that the
five deceased pigs that were seized were all very thin, and some had stab
wounds in addition to evidence of having been shot.

ANALYSIS

The defendant's motion to suppress raises a number of arguments as
potential bases for it being granted. These include:

3
1. The search warrant affidavit failed to establish probable cause for
the address and location to be searched;
2. The search was executed at an address different than that issued in
the warrant;
3. The search for an affidavit failed to establish probable cause that
evidence of a crime would be found at the Ireland farm;
4. The search wan-ant failed to describe with particularity the items to
be seized; and
5. The agents lacked good faith in relying on the defective warrant.

In numerous cases, the Law Comi has addressed various challenges to
search warrants and the exclusion of evidence seized pursuant to such search
warrants. In generally addressing the applicability of the Fomih Amendment
constitutional analysis, the Law Comi in State v. Gurney, 2012 ME 14, i\31­
33, stated,
[t]he Fomih Amendment of the United States Constitution requires a
showing of probable cause, as suppmied by oath or affirmation,
before a search warrant may be issued. In dete1mining whether a
search warrant affidavit sufficiently establishes probable cause, we
review directly the finding of probable cause made by the judicial
officer when the warrant was issued, giving that finding "great
deference." Accordingly, we read the search warrant affidavit "in a
positive light and consider all reasonable inferences that may be
drawn from info1mation in the affidavit."

In reviewing a probable cause determination, we apply a "totality of
the circumstances" test, which "requires a practical, common-sense

4
decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in the affidavit
... including the veracity and basis of knowledge of persons
supplying hearsay information, there is a fair probability that
contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a paiiicular place.

"To meet the standard for probable cause, the wa1Tant affidavit must
set forth some nexus between the evidence to be seized and the
locations to be searched." [Inte1nal citations omitted]. See also, State
v. Nunez, 2016 ME 185, i\18-19.

In State v. Peakes, 440 A.2d 350 (Me. 1982) the Law Comi addressed the
sufficiency of the property description for the property which was the
subject of the search walTant in that case. In paiiicular, the court noted that
while a sufficient description of the property to be searched in the waiTant
itself is always preferable, the warrant and affidavit taken together provided
a description which was sufficiently paiiicular to protect the defendant's
constitutional rights.

The Law Court addressed the more specific issue of the absence of a street
address in a search wa1Tant application's supp01iing affidavit, in the case
State v. Wilcox, 840 A. 2d 711 (Me. 2004). In the pending case, as in Wilcox,
a specific street address was included on the search wa1Tant form, but was
absent from the supp01iing affidavit. In upholding the magistrate's approval
of the search wa1Tant in Wilcox, the Law Court concluded, "from a positive
reading of the facts in their totality, the affidavit provided ample probable
cause to believe that the evidence sought would be located in the place that
was searched." Id. at 714.

5
In the pending case, the lack of a specific street address in the supporting
affidavit, or even the arguably incorrect street number related to the
contiguous farmland parcel also owned by the defendant, which was
contained in the warrant, is not fatally defective. The particular location to
be searched in this case was an area which had been personally visited by
the affiant on numerous prior occasions, and, moreover was also depicted in
photographs taken near in time to the date the affidavit was prepared and
submitted. The risk of any misidentification of the property or location to be
searched in connection with the warrant due to a lack of a specific street
number address was minimal.

Applying the standards that the Law Court has articulated in the cases noted
above, and noting the deference which must be afforded the reviewing
magistrate's decision, this court concludes that the totality of the
circumstances establishes the finding of probable cause necessary to support
the issuance of a search wmTant to search the defendant's property where the
evidence in this case was ultimately seized. Moreover, the property to be
seized, namely, "any live, dead or unborn animals ... that are being or have
been deprived of necessary sustenance, proper shelter, and humanely clean
conditions" or "evidence of the crime of animal cruelty," as described in
the affidavit and search wmTant, was sufficiently pmiicular, and, in fact,
matched the property which was actually seized in this case.

6
For all these reasons, the court hereby denies the plaintiffs Motion to
Suppress. 1

URT JUSTICE
V

1 Because the Court concludes that the evidence supported the probable cause

determinations that were made by the District Court Judge who approved the warrant, the
Court does not reach issue relating to the applicability of the "good faith exception."

7