State of Maine V. Fontaine

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET , No. CR-12-4193 T:r)VJ ·-· c UJV\ - i') ') /~-;\ C/ .~' STATE OF MAINE v. ORDER JOHN FONTAINE, Defendant Before the court is defendant's motion to suppress certain statements. A hearing on that motion was held on December 20, 2012. The facts are straightforward. On June 23, 2012 Officer Longanecker of the South Portland Police Department was called to the Food Court at the Maine Mall based on a report of an assault. Longanecker was informed by the dispatcher that a white male in a black shirt was leaving the scene. When Longanecker responded to the area in his cruiser, he had a brief conversation with a loss prevention officer who directed Longanecker's attention to a white vehicle traveling on Philbrook Avenue and informed Longanecker that the male who had left the scene was a passenger in that vehicle. Longanecker stopped the vehicle, using his blue lights, on John Roberts Road. At that point Fontaine got out of the passenger side of the vehicle and immediately approached Longanecker, moving quickly toward him. As he came toward Longanecker, Fontaine made a statement about "hitting Josh" and requested that Longanecker not arrest him, adding that he was on federal probation. 1 1 There is no dispute that those statements were spontaneous utterances made when defendant was not in custody and the defense is not seeking to suppress those statements. Concerned about the manner in which Fontaine had rushed towards him, Longanecker told Fontaine to stop where he was and placed Fontaine in handcuffs for officer safety. After he had handcuffed Fontaine, Longanecker patted him down for weapons and found none. At that point, with Fontaine still in handcuffs, Longanecker asked Fontaine what had happened. Longanecker did not give Fontaine any Miranda warning at that time. In response to Longanecker's question, Fontaine offered some information about a prior encounter with Joshua Jensen (the alleged victim of the assault) and stated that Jensen had followed him and had threatened to "fuck him [Fontaine] up." Fontaine is seeking to suppress the statements he made after he was handcuffed in response to Longanecker's question as to what had happened and to a further question by Longanecker was to whether Jensen had elaborated on what he meant when he said he was going to "fuck him up." The motion to suppress turns on whether Fontaine was in custody for purposes of Miranda when he responded to Longanecker's two questions after Longanecker had handcuffed him and whether, even if Fontaine was in custody, the "public safety" exception to Miranda is applicable here. See New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 656-59 (1984). Whether a person is in custody for Miranda purposes requires evaluation of a number of factors to determine whether a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have believed that he was under arrest or was constrained to a degree associated with formal arrest. State v. Michaud, 1998 ME 251 <[ 4, 724 A.2d 1222, 1226. In this case, the court has considered the factors set forth in Michaud and concludes that a reasonable person in Fontaine's position, having been handcuffed and frisked under the circumstances of this case, would have believed that he was under arrest or was 2 constrained to a degree associated with formal arrest. See United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 676-77 (2d Cir. 2004)_2 At the same time the court finds that Officer Longanecker's actions in handcuffing Fontaine were motivated and justified by officer safety. However, the Miranda exception under New York v. Quarles applies only to questions designed to elicit information necessary for the officer's safety and the safety of the public. See 467 U.S. at 658-59 (distinguishing between "questions necessary to secure [police officers'] safety or the safety of the public" and questions designed to elicit testimonial evidence); United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d at 677-79. In this case Officer Longanecker acted reasonably in handcuffing Fontaine when Fontaine exited the vehicle in which he was riding and swiftly approached Longanecker. However, once Longanecker had handcuffed Fontaine, Longanecker's questions focused on what had happened at the mall and not on any immediate issue relating to Longanecker's safety or the safety of the public. Accordingly, Fontaine's motion to suppress is granted as to the statements Fontaine made in response to the two questions Longanecker posed after Fontaine had been handcuffed handcuffed. See State v. Brann, 1999 ME 113 <[15, 736 A.2d 251. Defendant's motion to suppress statements is granted to the extent set forth above. Dated: January g. 2013 ~----Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court 2 A person may be detained without being in custody for purposes of Miranda. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 436, 440 (1984); United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d at 669. Where Fontaine had been handcuffed and frisked, more than a simple investigatory detention occurred here. 3 STATE OF MAINE VS JOHN H FONTAINE 1 NORTH PARK ST BIDDEFORD ME 04005 Docket No CUMCD-CR-2012-04193 DOCKET RECORD DOB: 07/05/1976 Attorney: GEORGE HESS GEORGE A HESS ESQ 11 LISBON ST., LEWISTON PO BOX 423 AUBURN ME 04212-0423 APPOINTED 10/12/2012 State's Attorney: STEPHANIE ANDERSON Charge(s} 1 ASSAULT Seq 8382 17 -A LONGANECKER 06/23/2012 SOUTH PORTLAND 207 (1} (A} Class D I SPO Docket Events: 06/28/2012 FILING DOCUMENT - CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 06/26/2012 06/28/2012 Charge(s): 1 HEARING- ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 08/22/2012 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. 1 NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 06/28/2012 BAIL BOND - $100.00 CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 06/26/2012 Bail Receipt Type: CR Bail Amt: $100 Date Bailed: 06/23/2012 Receipt Type: CK Prvdr Name: JOHN Rtrn Name: FONTAINE 682 08/09/2012 Charge (s): 1 SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - COMPLAINT FILED ON 08/06/2012 JAMES TURCOTTE , ASSISTANT CLERK 09/13/2012 BAIL BOND - CASH BAIL BOND DEFAULTED ON 08/22/2012 Date Bailed: 06/23/2012 682 09/13/2012 BAIL BOND - CASH BAIL BOND NOTICE SENT ON 09/13/2012 Date Bailed: 06/23/2012 682 09/13/2012 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT FTA ON 08/22/2012 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE 09/13/2012 BAIL BOND- $1,000.00 CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 08/22/2012 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE NO THIRD PARTY BAIL 09/13/2012 WARRANT- $1,000.00 FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR ORDERED ON 08/22/2012 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE CR 200 Page 1 of 4 W/ COND Printed on: 01/22/2013 JOHN H FONTAINE CUMCD-CR-2012-04193 DOCKET RECORD NO THIRD PARTY CASH BAIL TO WEDS 8:30 ARRAGNMENT. NOT TO BE AT THE MAINE MALL. NO CONTACT; JOSHUA JENSON. 09/13/2012 WARRANT- $1,000.00 FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR ISSUED ON 09/13/2012 NO THIRD PARTY CASH BAIL TO WEDS 8:30 ARRAGNMENT. NOT TO BE AT THE MAINE MALL. NO CONTACT; JOSHUA JENSON. 09/26/2012 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 10/12/2012 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 1 09/26/2012 WRIT - HABEAS CORPUS TO PROSECUTE ISSUED ON 09/26/2012 JAMES TURCOTTE , ASSISTANT CLERK CERTIFIED COPY TO SHERIFF DEPT. 09/28/2012 WARRANT - FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR RECALLED ON 09/28/2012 09/28/2012 WARRANT - FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR CANCEL ACKNOWLEDGED ON 09/28/2012 at 08:34 a.m. 09/28/2012 WARRANT- $1,000.00 FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR ORDERED ON 08/22/2012 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE CONDITIONS: NO THIRD PARTY, CASH BAIL, TO WEDS 8:30 ARRAIGNMENT. NOT TO BE AT THE MAINE MALL, NO CONTACT: JOSHUA JENSON. 09/28/2012 WARRANT - $1,000.00 FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR ISSUED ON 09/28/2012 CONDITIONS: NO THIRD PARTY, CASH BAIL, TO WEDS 8:30 ARRAIGNMENT. NOT TO BE AT THE MAINE MALL, NO CONTACT: JOSHUA JENSON. 10/18/2012 WARRANT - FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR RECALLED ON 10/18/2012 DEF WAS TRANSPORTED TO COURT AND ARRAIGNED ON 10/12/12 - BAIL HAS BEEN SET AND RETURN DATE ORDERED /S/ K. RAY, ASSOC. CLERK 10/18/2012 WARRANT - FOR FAILURE TO APPEAR CANCEL ACKNOWLEDGED ON 10/18/2012 at 10:09 a.m. 10/18/2012 WRIT - HABEAS CORPUS TO PROSECUTE REMANDED ON 10/12/2012 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE 10/18/2012 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 10/12/2012 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE DA: ANGELA CANNON DEFENDANT INFORMED OF CHARGES. 21 DAYS TO FILE MOTIONS 10/18/2012 Charge(s): 1 PLEA - NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 10/12/2012 TAPE #4380 10/18/2012 BAIL BOND - CASH BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 10/12/2012 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE $300. 10/18/2012 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 12/04/2012 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 10/18/2012 TRIAL 10/18/2012 MOTION - JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 01/28/2013 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 7 11 MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 10/12/2012 10/18/2012 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL GRANTED ON 10/12/2012 WILLIAM BRODRICK , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL Page 2 of 4 CR 200 Printed on: 01/22/2013 JOHN H FONTAINE CUMCD-CR-2012-04193 DOCKET RECORD 10/18/2012 Party(s): JOHN H FONTAINE ATTORNEY - APPOINTED ORDERED ON 10/12/2012 Attorney: GEORGE HESS 11/26/2012 OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 11/21/2012 NOTICE FROM DEF ATTY THAT DEF IS IN CCJ 11/26/2012 WRIT - HABEAS CORPUS TO PROSECUTE ISSUED ON 11/26/2012 DEBBIE COOK , ASSISTANT CLERK CERTIFIED COPY TO SHERIFF DEPT. DEF IS IN FED CUSTODY 12/04/2012 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 12/04/2012 JOYCE A WHEELER , JUSTICE Attorney: GEORGE HESS DA: ROBERT ELLIS CONF HELD *DEF NOT TRANSPORTED, WRIT DENIED BY FEDS. MOTION TO BE FILED AND HEARD 12-20-12. FED WRIT TO BE DONE. 12/04/2012 Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 12/04/2012 12/04/2012 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SCHEDULED FOR 12/20/2012 at 01:00 p.m. NOTICE 12/04/2012 WRIT - TO PARTIES/COUNSEL HABEAS CORPUS TO PROSECUTE ISSUED ON 12/04/2012 CERTIFIED COPY TO CUSTODY 12/21/2012 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - MOTION THOMAS D WARREN , Attorney: GEORGE DA: ROBERT ELLIS Defendant Present SHERIFF DEPT. DEF IS IN FED TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE HELD ON 12/20/2012 JUSTICE HESS in Court TAPE 4584 DUE 1/4/13 STATES BRIEF DEFENDANTS BRIEF DUE 1/11/13 UPONE RECEIPT OF THE DEFENDANTS BRIEF THE STATE IS TO IMMEDIATELY INFORM THE CLERKS OFFICE OF WHETHER OR NOT A REPLY IS FORTHCOMING. 12/21/2012 Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 12/20/2012 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE 12/21/2012 CASE STATUS - CASE FILE LOCATION ON 12/21/2012 FILE WITH JUSTICE WARREN 01/11/2013 MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/10/2013 01/16/2013 MOTION - MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME GRANTED ON 01/15/2013 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/16/2013 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/16/2013 CR 200 Page 3 of 4 Printed on: 01/22/2013 JOHN H FONTAINE CUMCD-CR-2012 04193 DOCKET RECORD 01/16/2013 OTHER FILING - MEMORANDUM OF LAW FILED ON 01/16/2013 Attorney: GEORGE HESS IN AID OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS 01/22/2013 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE DENIED ON 01/22/2013 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL DENIED UNLESS THE ANDROSCOGGIN CASE REFERRED TO BY COUNSEL IN FACT FOES FORWARD ON JAN. 28. IF THE ANDRO CASE IS RESOLVED ON THE MORNING OF JAN. 28, COUNSEL SHALL CALL THE COURT IN CUMBERLAND FOR INSTRUCTIONS AS TO WHETHER TO REPORT FOR JURY SELECTION ON THAT DATE. 01/22/2013 WRIT - HABEAS CORPUS TO PROSECUTE ISSUED ON 01/28/2013 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 11 CERTIFIED COPY TO SHERIFF DEPT. 01/22/2013 Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE GRANTED ON 01/22/2013 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE IN THIS CASE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL OFFICER LONGANECKER ACTED REASONABLY IN HANDCUFFING FONTAINE WHEN FONTAINE EXITED THE VEHICLE IN WHICH HE WAS RIDING AND SWIFTLY APPROACHED LONGANECKER. HOWEVER, ONCE LONGANECKER HAD HANCUFFED FONTAINE, LONGNACKER'S QUESTIONS FOCUSED ON WHAT HAD HAPPENED AT THE MALL AND NOT ANY IMMEDIATE ISSUE RELATING TO LONGANECKER'S SAFETY OR THE SAFTEY OF THE PUBLIC. ACCORDINGLY, FONTAINES MOTION IS GRANTED ORDER CONT 01/22/2013 ORDER - COURT ORDER FILED ON 01/22/2013 THOMAS D WARREN , JUSTICE GRANTED AS TO THE STATEMENTS FONTAINE MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE TWO QUESTIONS LONGNAKER POSED AFTER FONTAINE HAD BEEN HANDCUFFED. SEE STATE V BRANN. DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS IS GRANTED TO THE EXTENT SET FORTH ABOVE. SEE ORDER A TRUE COPY ATTEST: Clerk CR 200 Page 4 of 4 Printed on: 01/22/2013

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.