ME: Describing stolen tools by color and make was certainly particular as it could get

Stolen tools were described in the search warrant by color and make, and this was not unconstitutionally vague in the description just because other brands might have the same color scheme. “In this case, the search warrants identified the items to be seized with as much particularity as was possible under the circumstances.” State v. Winchester, 2018 ME 142, 2018 Me. LEXIS 147 (Oct. 18, 2018). [Compared to others I’ve seen for stolen property, this was really specific.]

Defendant’s initial encounter with officers was to just ask him questions, and he couldn’t believe it was custodial or that he wasn’t free to leave. Defendant happened to drive up to a house being searched. Then he gave implausible stories about why he was there. “Moreover, Defendant’s false claims that he had not been driving the truck and trailer and his change in demeanor as he was being questioned about his identity—breathing rapidly and sweating profusely—increased Majors’ suspicions that Defendant was involved in the drug trafficking for which the agents were investigating the residence where Defendant parked the truck and trailer and that he might run or attack the officers as Majors had experienced with other suspects who behaved similarly.” This justified further restraint. United States v. Best, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177684 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 17, 2018),* adopted, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177403 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 16, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Particularity, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.