State of Maine v. Daniels

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET
KENNEBEC, SS. AUGUSTA
DOCKET NO. CR-19-2421

STATE OF MAINE

V. DECISION ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

PARRIS DANIELS

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the comt on the Defendant's (Parris Daniels's) Motion
to Suppress evidence dated December 6, 2019. A testimonial hearing was held on
March 2, 2020, at which the court received the testimony of Special Agent Ryan
Dinsmore of MDEA and the Waterville Police Department and Laura Harvey, a
front desk clerk employed by the Best Western Hotel in Waterville.
The evidentiary hearing was left open at the request of counsel for Mr. Daniels
in order to have another witness testify in support of the motion. That witness, Ms.
Nina Guadalupe, resided in New York City. When the COVID-19 pandemic struck
later in March, 2020, no one from New York was pe1mitted to attend court in Maine
without being subject to a two-week quarantine. Moreover, New York City itself
experienced a major surge in COVID-19 cases at that time. As a result, the record
in this case stayed open for many months.
On September 2, 2020, counsel for Mr. Daniels moved to withdraw, which
motion was granted on September 3, 2020. New counsel was appointed the same
day. On October 27, 2020, the court was informed that Ms. Guadalupe's testimony
was not needed, and the evidentiary record on the motion to suppress could be closed
and the court could decide the matter on the basis of the evidence presented at the
March 2, 2020 hearing.
The court has reviewed the transcript of the March 2, 2020 hearing and has
also reviewed its own notes. Based on the evidence presented, the court makes the
following findings of fact.
FACTS
On or about November 10, 2019, Special Agent Dinsmore 1 received
information from his colleague, Officer Mikayla Hodge, that she had received
information that there was an unusually high level of "pedestrian traffic" to rooms
105 and 110 at the Best Westen1 Hotel in Waterville. The source of this information
was Laura Harvey, a front desk clerk at the hotel. As a result of this information,
Officer Hodge received a list of persons staying at the hotel, which she shared with
Agent Dinsmore. Dinsmore reviewed the list and recognized the name of Parris
Daniels. In particular, Dinsmore was aware that in September, 2019, Daniels had
been arrested and charged with a drug offense and had been released on bail with a
condition that he not use or possess illegal drugs, and subject to search of his person
or residence "upon articulable suspicion." See State v. Parris Daniels, KEN-CR­
2019-1949. See Hearing Transcript at 8-10.
Dinsmore, along with several other officers, then went to the Best Western
Hotel. Another officer told Dinsmore that he had seen a man matching the
description of Parris Daniels go outside to the parking lot, where he was speaking to
another individual sitting in a vehicle. The other officer pointed out the vehicle to
Dinsmore, who immediately recognized the operator of the vehicle as someone who
had engaged in and been convicted of drug trafficking in central Maine sometime in

'At the time of the evidentiary hearing, Agent Dinsmore was assigned to MDEA. At the time
of the search at issue in this case, he was working for his home agency, the Waterville Police
Department, as a patrol officer.

2
the past. Agent Dinsmore was able to name the man in the vehicle (Donald Dennis),
and also testified that he had recent (within the last several months) intelligence
information that Dennis was again engaged in trafficking in illegal drugs. See
Transcript at 14.
On cross-examination, Agent Dinsmore testified that he personally spoke to
the front desk clerk, Ms. Harvey, who told him "[t]hat there were two rooms that
seemed to be getting a lot of traffic this evening and it appeared to be drug related."
Transcript at 20.
Laura Harvey was called by Mr. Daniels. She was not entirely sure of the
night of November 10, 2019, but she did recall that she checked Daniels into the
hotel and that she provided a list of the guests staying at the hotel to Officer Hodge,
which she did on a routine basis. When asked if she had told the police officer that
she thought there was drug activity going on "that particular night," she said: "I may
have," but she did not specifically recall. Tr. at 37. She acknowledged that she did
not personalJy witness a lot of activity in or around rooms 105 and 110, but may
have relied on other employees at the hotel for that infonnation. Tr. at 38. Ms.
Hodge did not have a strong memory of November 10, 2019, but testified that she
would not have used the term, "drug activity." Rather, she would have told the
police there was "suspicious activity," which might include drug activity. Tr. at 43.
Based on this information, Agent Dinsmore conducted a search of Daniels in
the parking lot and found scheduled drugs on him. He then informed Daniels that a
search of his hotel room would also be conducted. Daniels handed Dinsmore his
room key. Ms. Guadalupe was found in the room, as was a firearm, but no illegal
drugs or paraphernalia were found inside the room. Based on the search of Daniels
and the discovery of scheduled drugs on him, and the search of the hotel room where
the gun was found, Daniels has been charged with Aggravated Trafficking in
Cocaine (Class A) (Count 1), Possession of a Firearm by a Prohibited Person (Class

3
C) (Count 2), and Violation of Condition of Release (Class E) (Count 3). The
Indictment also seeks the forfeiture of the firearm (Count 4).
DISCUSSION
By the terms of the bail bond in Docket No. KEN-CR-2019-1949, dated
September 7, 2019, Daniels was subject to a condition that he submit to a search of
his person and/or residence for illegal drugs "upon articulable suspicion." The
phrase "reasonable, articulable suspicion" is generally used to describe the authority
of a law enforcement officer to detain an individual when "specific and articulable
facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably
warrant that intrusion." State v. Gerry, 2016 ME 163, ,I 12, 150 A.3d 810. See Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968). The Law Court has made it clear that the standard
is a low one, and has stated: "In general, '[t]he only requirement we have imposed
on the reasonable articulable suspicion standard is that an officer's suspicion be more
than mere speculation or an unsubstantiated hunch.'" State v. King, 2009 ME 14, !
6,965 A.2d 52 quoting State v. Porter, 2008 ME 175, i 11,960 A.2d 321,323.
Here, the comt concludes that Agent Dinsmore did have reasonable
articulable suspicion that Daniels was engaged in illegal drug activity and, therefore,
was justified in conducting the searches of him and the hotel room. The facts within
the officer's knowledge, and the reasonable inferences from those facts,justified the
officer's suspicions, namely, the officer's awareness that just 2 months earlier
Daniels had been arrested and charged with a drug offense; the information from
Officer Hodge, which was based on information from the employee at the Best
Western Hotel, that there was an unusually high level of pedestrian traffic near
rooms 105 and 110 at the hotel~ that Daniels was staying at the hotel on the evening
in question and was observed by another officer leaving one of those rooms and
going to the parking lot, where he was seen talking with a man in a vehicle who
Dinsmore knew had been convicted of drug trafficking, and about whom Dinsmore

4
had recent intelligence to the effect that the man was again engaged in illegal drug
activity. All of this information, and the reasonable inferences therefrom, amounted
to reasonable aiticulable suspicion, not mere conjecture or hunch.
At the testimonial hearing, then-counsel for Daniels also argued that
Dinsmore had no authority to enter and search Daniels's hotel room where the gun
was located. Rather, he maintained that the officer could only charge Daniels with
viol ating a condition of his release if he refused to al Iow the search of the hotel room,
and then seek a search warrant. This argument fails, however, because Daniels did
not refuse to allow the search of his room upon Dinsmore's demand. On the
contrary, Daniels gave Dinsmore the key to the· room. In short, Daniels was
obligated to submit to a search of his residence, which the comt construes to include
his rented hotel room, upon articulable suspicion, and he complied with that
requirement.
The entry is:
Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.

Dated: October 30, 2020

William R. Stokes
Justice, Superior Court

5