State of Maine v. Thorndike

STATE OF MAINE mi SUPERIOR COURT

CUMBERLAND, SS. Sie Docket No. CR 21-3766
STATE OF MAINE }
)
)
)

Vv. ) Order on Motion to Suppress

)
)
Townsend Thorndike, )
Defendant. )

This matter is before the court on a motion to suppress based upon the doctrine set out
in Delaware v. Franks.

These motions are typically done in two phases. In the first phase, the defendant has
the burden of showing that the affiant either knowingly and intentionally, or with
reckless disregard for the truth, made a false statement or omitted material information
ina warrant affidavit. Secondly, that the allegedly false statement or material omission
was necessary to the finding of probable cause. If those showings are made a
defendant, is entitled to a full Franks hearing.

In this case the state acknowledges statements claimed by the defendant that should
have been included in the affidavit were not. However the court concludes, as the state
argues ,that those statements neither negated probable cause nor otherwise invalidated
the search warrant.

Detective Rappold had more than adequate probable cause in his affidavit to allow the
issuing judge to sign the search warrant for evidence of the sex crimes against a minor
enumerated therein.

It was reasonable to request a search of computer devices for evidence of those crimes.
Even if a victim was unaware of being photographed or videotaped, that can occur in
these types of cases. Further , defendant's browser history as reported to Detective
Rappold by the child's mother, created probable cause that the defendant possessed
evidence of a crime on his computer as he was attempting to search how to destroy his
hard drive shortly after the sexual assault had been reported to police.
In conclusion, there was more than substantial probable cause to justify the issuance of
a search warrant for evidence of crimes of sexual assault. None of the alleged
statements argued by the defense negated that probable cause. The defendant's browser
browser history as well as the nature of these offenses justified a search of his electronic
devices regardless of the statements that the defendant argues should have been
included in the affidavit. Nor would the inclusion of those statements have negated
probable cause to search his electronic devices. Finally, the decisions to grant search
warrants and their scope is examined on an objective basis. Even if Detective Rappold
was subjectively suspicious of the presence of child ponography on these devices, the
evidence viewed objectively, authorized their search for evidence of the three
enumerated sex offenses.

Accordingly the motion to suppress is denied.

Dated: October 10, 2023

JUSTICE, MAINE SUPERIOR COURT