State of Maine v. Taft

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMIN AL DOCKET
KENNEBEC, ss. AUGUSTA
DOCKET NO. CD-CR-18-0189

STATE OF MAINE

v. ORDER ON MOTION FOR FURTHER
FINDINGS OFFACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

KIJAUME TAFT,
Defendant

The Court has previously ·e ntered an Order denying Defendant's Motion
to Suppress. Defense counsel filed a Motion for Further Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law, and the State has filed its response. After reviewing the
Order and filings of the parties, the Court enters the. following Order in response
to Defendant's motion:

1.It is impossible for the undersigned to "specify the moment when Mr.
Taft was arrested by law enforcement" as defense counsel requests. The Court
has already made a finding that Defendant was arrested shortly after the motor
vehicle that contained Defendant was stopped by law enforcement.

2. The State apparently continues to press its contention that Defendant
was not arrested even after he was handcuffed at gunpoint by law enforcement.'
This, notwithstanding the fact that the Court has already found that Defendant
was arrested, see CJ[ 15 of the Order dated 8 / 14 / 19.

3. The First Circuit has noted that there is no scientifically precise
formula that enables courts to distinguish between valid investigatory stops and
de facto arrests. United States v. Owens, 167 F.3d 739, 749 (1" Cir. 1999). The
Court in Owens noted that courts making this inquiry should "examine whether
the police diligently pursued a means of investigation that was likely to confirm
or dispel their suspicions quickly during which time it was necessary to detain
the defendant. A court making this assessment should take care to consider
whether the police are acting in a swiftly developing situation, and in such cases
the court should not indulge in unrealistic second-guessing." Id.

, The State in its first brief contended that it "disputes this fact (that Defendant was removed from
his vehicle at gunpoint and handcuffed) ... "; however, the State chose not to call any officer(s)
who could have testified to the contrary.
4. The undersigned continues to find that Defendant was arrested, not
"detained" when he was removed from his vehicle at gunpoint and handcuffed;
however, the undersigned also continues to find that Defendant was arrested
because probable cause was present to justify the arrest. The probable cause
standard is flexible and based on common sense. Although requiring more than
mere suspicion, probable cause can be satisfied on less than the quantum of
proof necessary to establish a fact by a fair preponderance of the evidence. State
v. Flint, 2011 l\1E 20, <f[ 12.

5. In this case there was sufficient probable cause to believe the
Defendant was involved in illegal drug trafficking and thus sufficient reason to
stop and arrest Defendant. Based upon this record, the Court has already noted
that it is impossible to note "the exact moment" that Defendant was arrested,
other than to note that it was either shortly before, or shortly after, Defendant's
companion turned illegal drugs over to law enforcement.

6. Other than what is set forth above, Defendant's motion is denied.

Date: 9/4/19

BY&kc; ILL
Robert E. Mullen, Deputy Chief Justice
Maine Superior Court

2