Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > State v. Samuel Morrill

State v. Samuel Morrill

Case Date: 10/05/1998
Court: Supreme Court
Docket No: 1998 ME 224

State v. Morrill
Download as PDF
Back to Opinions page

MAINE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT					Reporter of Decisions
Decision:	1998 ME 224
Docket:	And-97-750
Submitted
On Briefs:	September 23, 1998
Decided:	October 5, 1998


Panel:  WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, SAUFLEY, ALEXANDER, and
	 CALKINS, JJ.




STATE OF MAINE

v.

SAMUEL A. MORRILL

ALEXANDER, J.

	[¶1]  	Samuel A. Morrill appeals from the judgment entered in the
Superior Court (Androscoggin County, Studstrup, J.) following his
conditional plea and conviction for trafficking in marijuana (Class C) in
violation of 17­p;A M.R.S.A. § 1103 (1983 & Supp. 1997).{1}  On appeal, he
contends that the court (Delahanty, J.) erred in denying his motion to
suppress because, he asserts, Androscoggin County deputy sheriffs had no
authority to stop him or seize his vehicle in Cumberland County.  We affirm.
	[¶2]  	Morrill does not dispute that the deputies had (1) probable
cause to stop him or (2) a sufficient basis to obtain a warrant and search his
vehicle.  He contends that 30­p;A M.R.S.A. § 404 does not authorize the stop
or seizure and search of a vehicle stopped in another county.
	[¶3]  	Section 404 provides, in pertinent part:
	Every sheriff or deputy sheriff in fresh pursuit of a person
who travels beyond the limits of the county in which the sheriff
or deputy is appointed has the same power to arrest that person
as the sheriff or deputy has within the sheriff's or deputy's own
county.  This section applies to all classes of crimes and traffic
infractions.  . . . .

	[¶4]  	In granting extra territorial powers "to arrest," section 404
necessarily grants authority for a stop and any follow-up to an arrest,
including seizure and search of a vehicle.
	The entry is:
	Judgment affirmed.
                                                        
Attorneys for State:
Norman R. Croteau, Esq.
David Fisher, Asst. Dist. Atty.
2 Turner Street
Auburn, ME 04210

Attorney for defendant:

Sheila A. Cook, Esq.
Law Offices of William Maselli
98 Court Street
Auburn ME 04210
FOOTNOTES******************************** {1} 17­p;A M.R.S.A. § 1103 (1983 & Supp. 1997) provides in pertinent part: 1. A person is guilty of unlawful trafficking in a scheduled drug if the person intentionally or knowingly trafficks in what the person knows or believes to be a scheduled drug and that is in fact a scheduled drug . . . . 2. Violation of this section is: . . . . B. A Class C crime if the drug is a schedule X drug, if it is marijuana in a quantity of more than one pound or if it is marijuana and the person grows or cultivates 100 or more plants . . . 3. A person is presumed to be unlawfully trafficking in scheduled drugs if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses any scheduled drug that is, in fact: A. More than one pound of marijuana. . . .