Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court terminating Father’s parental rights to his child pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii), holding that the court did not err in its parental unfitness and best interest determinations and that Father was not denied due process. The Court held (1) the district court did not err by determining that Father was unfit because he was unable to “meet his son’s special needs and take responsibility for him in a reasonable time to meet those needs” and to “protect his son from jeopardy in a reasonable time to meet his needs” and that termination was in the child’s best interest; and (2) Father was not denied due process. View "In re Child of James R." on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of arson. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court violated his right to be protected against double jeopardy by admitting in his trial evidence on which the State relied to try to prove some of the charges of which Defendant was acquitted in a prior trial. The Supreme Judicial Court agreed, holding that the admission of that evidence was barred by collateral estoppel and violated Defendant’s right to be protected from double jeopardy and that the error was not harmless. View "State v. Weckerly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment convicting Defendant of three counts of possession of sexually explicit material, thus denying Defendant’s challenges to the denial of his motion to suppress statements and digital evidence obtained by the police after they entered his home. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in finding that he consented to the police officers’ entry into his home, which resulted in the search and seizure of his computer. The Supreme Judicial Court held that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a finding that Defendant consented to the officers’ entry. View "State v. Marquis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of aggravated trafficking in scheduled drugs, unlawful possession of a scheduled drug, and unlawful possession of oxycodone. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that was found in the curtilage of his home and abused its discretion in denying his motion to exclude other evidence on the basis of a discovery violation. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the evidence obtained as a result of law enforcement officers’ search of bags they discovered within Defendant’s “curtilage” was properly admitted under the plain view exception and the inevitable discovery exception to the warrant requirement; and (2) the court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of a pharmacist because the State had only recently notified Defendant that the pharmacist would testify in the place of another pharmacist who had also been on the witness list. View "State v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of aggravated trafficking in scheduled drugs, unlawful possession of a scheduled drug, and unlawful possession of oxycodone. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence that was found in the curtilage of his home and abused its discretion in denying his motion to exclude other evidence on the basis of a discovery violation. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the evidence obtained as a result of law enforcement officers’ search of bags they discovered within Defendant’s “curtilage” was properly admitted under the plain view exception and the inevitable discovery exception to the warrant requirement; and (2) the court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of a pharmacist because the State had only recently notified Defendant that the pharmacist would testify in the place of another pharmacist who had also been on the witness list. View "State v. Sullivan" on Justia Law

Me. Rev. Stat. 17-A, 1112 is facially constitutional, and, in the instant case, the trial court’s admission of a lab certificate in lieu of live witness testimony pursuant to that statute was not a violation of Defendant’s right of confrontation.Defendant appealed from a judgment, entered after a jury trial, convicting her of unlawful trafficking of a schedule W drug. At issue was whether the trial court’s admission of a lab certificate identifying a substance exchanged in a controlled purchase as methamphetamine. The court admitted the lab certificate in lieu of the testimony of the chemist pursuant to section 1112. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) section 1112 is facially constitutional; (2) Defendant’s failure to timely demand a live witness pursuant to section 1112 effected a voluntary, knowing, and intentional waiver of her Confrontation Clause rights; and (3) therefore, the trial court did not err in allowing into admission the chemist’s certificate in lieu of live testimony. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

The motion court did not err by applying the inevitable discovery doctrine to deny Defendant's motion to suppress evidence of drugs found on his person before the issuance of a search warrant.The Unified Criminal Docket found Defendant guilty of unlawful trafficking in scheduled drugs and ordering a criminal forfeiture. In denying Defendant’s motion to suppress drug evidence, the trial court found that law enforcement officers’ warrantless entry into an apartment was not justified by exigent circumstances but that it was highly likely that the officers inevitably would have discovered drugs. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, holding (1) the motion court did not err by finding that the police inevitably would have discovered the drug evidence at issue by lawful means; and (2) application of the inevitable discovery doctrine does not create an incentive for police misconduct and does not significantly weaken Fourth Amendment protections. View "State v. Prinkleton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, entered after a jury trial, finding that Defendant had committed the civil violations of improperly displaying a registration plate and failing to register a vehicle that is operated or remains on a public way. Contrary to Defendant’s arguments on appeal, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in finding that the State established the elements of each violation; and (2) the court proceedings below did not violate the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, or the Americans with Disabilities Act. View "State v. Chase" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the judgment of the superior court permanently enjoining Ronald Champagne from, among other things, “threatening or using physical force or violence against any person by reason of that person’s race, color, religion, sex, ancestry, national origin, physical or mental disability or sexual orientation” in violation of the Maine Civil Rights Act. Champagne filed motions to amend the judgment and for further findings of fact and conclusions of law, asserting that the injunction was overbroad. The superior court denied the motions. The Supreme Judicial Court remanded the matter for the superior court to make findings supporting the granting of and the broad scope of the injunction and to explain its rationale in doing so. View "State v. Champagne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court granting the Department of Environmental Protection’s request for a permanent injunction prohibiting Dubois Livestock, Inc. and the Randrick Trust (collectively, Appellants) from denying the Department access for solid waste inspections. The court held (1) the superior court did not err in concluding that Me. Rev. Stat. 38, 347-C and 1304(4-A) permit the Department to enter Appellants’ property without consent or an administrative search warrant; and (2) the warrantless searches authorized by these statutes do not violate Appellants’ constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. View "State v. Dubois Livestock, Inc." on Justia Law