Opinion
Criminal Action CR-19-3335
12-09-2020
STATE OF MAINE, v. BRAD JOHNSON, Defendant
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPRESS
ROLAND COLE JUSTICE
The matter before the court is motion by Defendant Brad Johnson to suppress photographs taken of the exterior of his truck and evidence he contends flowed from these pictures. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
Factual Background
On October 27, 2019, two pedestrians on Lisbon Street in Lewiston, Maine, heard someone calling for help from some nearby bushes. (Reply at 1.) They found Jason Stratton, who had been hit by a car in a hit and run accident, lying by the side of the road with life threatening injuries. Id., When police investigated the scene they discovered parts that had broken off from the car during the collision. Id. These pieces were traced using part numbers to a grey Toyota Tundra manufactured in 2014 or later. Id.
The following day, Sargent Trevor Campbell developed a list of 92 vehicles registered in the area that matched this description. Id. One of these trucks was registered to the Defendant in this case, Brad Johnson. Id.
Police decided to follow up on Johnson because his address was consistent with the direction that the motorist who had struck Stratton was reportedly traveling. Id. After failing to locate his vehicle at Johnson's house, Campbell went to his business, Brad's Precision Auto. Id. The business has a lot adjacent to it that is used as customer and employee parking. Id. at 1-2. There Campbell observed a grey Toyota Tundra parked in the lot facing away from the street. Id. at 2. He entered the lot and inspected the truck more closely. Id. Campbell discovered that the front of the truck was damaged and that there were removed parts sitting in the bed of the trucks. Id. He took photographs of this damage for evidence. The officer did not search the interior of the truck.
Based on this evidence, Detective William Brochu applied for a warrant to seize and search the truck and an open dumpster nearby that seemed to contain vehicle parts. Id. When Detective Joey Brown went to execute the warrant, he spoke to Justin McCormick, who revealed further incriminating information, including that Johnson had told him that he was in an accident on October 27. On October 31, 2019, Johnson was arrested.
Discussion
The Fourth Amendment protects only those areas from intrusion where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360 (1967). "What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection." Id. at 351. Government agents are free to search areas of commercial property that are held open to the public without obtaining a warrant, See v, Seattle, 387 U.S. 541, 545 (1967). In the same vein, circuits have held that entry into parking lots with fencing, posting, or other indication that they were closed to the public does not intrude on any Fourth Amendment rights. See, e.g., United States v. Ludwig, 10 F.3d 1523, 1526 (10th Cir. 1993); United States v. Reed, 733 F.2d 492, 501 (1984).
The lot where Johnson had parked his truck had no fencing, no posting, no indication of any kind that it was not open to the public. While it may have been primarily used by employees and customers, the parking lot opened onto the street and was plainly visible. The fact that Johnson parked his truck facing the woods does not mean that he had a greater expectation of privacy in the front of his car than the hack. The front may have been more difficult to see from the street, but it is still part of the exterior of the vehicle parked in an open lot, Thus, Johnson knowingly exposed the truck to the public by parking it in that lot and cannot claim Fourth Amendment protection for a visual observation of the exterior of the vehicle.
The entry is
Defendant Brad Johnson's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.
The Clerk is directed to enter this order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 79(a).