IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
                        DIVISION OF ST THOMAS AND ST JOHN

PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS                          )
               Plaintiff                              )       Case No ST 2020 CR 00040
     vs                                               )
                                                      )
MATTHEW FONTAINE                                      )
             Defendant                                )
—___)

                                   Cite as 

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION


        THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Matthew Fontaine s ( Fontaine )

Motion to Suppress filed on January 9, 2022 The People filed an opposition on January 24, 2022

                                              FACTS


        The facts presented below are found in Fontaine s motion to suppress and are taken from

Officer Joel Browne Connors ( Officer Connors ) Piobable Cause Fact Sheet ‘

        On Febmary 7 2022, Officer Connors and Officer A Trant ( the officers ) were

dispatched to Tutu Park Mall to answer a 91 1 call to recover a stolen vehicle 2 There, the officers

encounteled Ge1a1d Polydore ( Polydore ), the individual who made the 911 call Polydore

infonned the officers that he reported his scooter stolen t0 VIPD on January 17, 2020 and that a

friend had called to alert him that Fontaine was at Tutu Park Mall and in possession of the scooter 3




' Def 3 Mot to Suppless, 1
7 Def 5 Mot to Supp1ess, 1
3 Def 5 Mot to Suppress, l
People v Matthew Fontame
Case No ST 2020 CR 00040                           Cite as 2022 VI Supei 37U
Memorandum Opinion
Page 2 of 6



        The officers approached Fontaine, informed him of the reasons for their stop, and requested

documents to validate ownership of the scooter 4 Fontaine responded by telling the officers that

the scooter was his and that he had built it from scratch 5 Fontaine then permitted Officer Connors

to record the scooter s VIN number, which matched the VIN number on Polydore s title 6 Fontaine

was subsequently arrested and charged with (I) unauthorized use of a vehicle in violation of V 1

Code Ann tit 14 § 1382 and (II) vehicle tampering in violation of VI Code Ann tit 14 §

1384(b) 7

        Fontaine now brings a motion to suppress the physical evidence obtained from the officers

stop in addition to his statement       that he owned and built the scooter himself 8 Fontaine further

iequests the Court to grant an evidentiary hearing on the motion before it rules on it 9

                                          LEGAL STANDARD


        The Fourth Amendment10 provides the right to be free from unreasonable searches and

seizures U S Const amend IV; US v Mathulm, 561 F 3d 170, 173 (3d Cir 2009) Warrantless

governmental activity is presumptively unreasonable, however, there are certain exceptions to the

warrant requirement Mathurm, 561 F 3d at 173 For instance, if police officers can point to

specific and articulable facts that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot

and a person is presumed to be involved, the police can conduct an investigatory stop to question




4 Def ’5 Mot t0 Suppiess, 2
3 Def 5 Mot to Suppiess, 2
6 Def 5 Mot to Suppiess, 2
7 Def 5 Mot to Suppiess, 2
8 Def s Mot t0 Suppress, 2
9 Def 5 Mot to Suppiess 2
'0 The Fouith Amendment applies in the U S Viigin Islands pursuant to the Revised Organic Act of 1954 See 48
U S C A § 1561 ( The right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated )
People v Matthew Fontame
Case No ST 2020 CR 00040                             Cite as 2022 VI Supel 37U
Mem01andum Opinion
Page 3 of 6



that person and determine their connection with the criminal activity People v Looby, 68 V I 683,

694 95 (2018) (finding that           when an officer notices suspicious conduct by a person whose

behavior leads the officer to reasonably conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity

may be afoot the officer may stop the individual to identify himself and make reasonable

inquiries ) Terryv Ohio 392 U S 1 10 21 (1968) Ornelasx US 517 U S 690 693 (1996)“

Mathurm 561 F 3d 173 74

        Generally, when a defendant files a motion to suppress, they must demonstrate that the

police activity was done without a warrant once that threshold is met the burden then shifts, and

the govemment must prove that their warrantless activity was reasonable under a Fourth

Amendment exception Looby 68 VI at 694 US 

 F 3d 242 245 (3d Cir 1995)

More importantly, [h]0wever, a stop to check a driver's license and registration is constitutional

when it is based on an articulable and reasonable suspicion that either the vehicle or an occupant

has violated the law       Johnson 63 F 3d at 245 (quoting Delawaie v Prouse, 440 U S 648, 663

(1979) (internal marks omitted»

                                                 DISCUSSION

The Court may not suppress evidence that was obtained during a lawful investigatory stop

        For evidence to constitute fruit of the poisonous tree and be excluded as evidence at trial,

it must be obtained through an unconstitutional search H Heirmg v U S                        555 U S 135        141

(2009) see People offhe VI 1 Walters 2017 VI Lexis 165 at *4 (V1 Super Ct 2017) Be that

as it may, “[a]ny evidence obtained pursuant to an investigatory stop”, conducted with a reasonable



” Indeed the Supleme Couit of the United States has noted that the exclusionaiy rule ‘is not an individual right and
applies only where it results in appreciable deten ence The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the argument
that exclusion is a necessary consequence ofa Foulth Amendment violation Hen mg 555 U S at 141
People v Matthew Fonmme
Case No ST 2020 CR 00040                      Cite as 

Memoxandum Opinion
Page 4 of 6



articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, will not fall under the fruit of the poisonous

tree doctrine US v Brown 448 F 3d 239 244 (3d Cir 2006)‘ US v Hargett 

 (3d Cir 2003) (affirming the denial of a motion to suppress when defendant uttered a statement

during a Terry stop pat down)

       In the present matter, Fontaine is seeking to suppress evidence that he alleges was obtained

unconstitutionally simply because he claims he was detained, searched, questioned, and arrested

without a warrant Specifically, Fontaine contends that his statement that he built the scooter

should be excluded from trial as fruit of the poisonous tree Here Polydore s scooter was stolen,

and he then received information that Fontaine was in possession of it On February 7 2020,

Polydore saw Fontaine at Tutu Park Mall followed him outside, and saw Fontaine sit on a scooter

Polydore subsequently called 911, at which point the officers were dispatched to recover a stolen

vehicle Upon arriving to Tutu Park Mall, Polydore met the officers and informed them that his

scooter was stolen on January 17, 2020

       By the time the officers approached Fontaine, they had obtained specific and articulable

facts that put them on reasonable suspicion of ongoing criminal activity At that point, the officers

had the authority to approach Fontaine and perform an investigatory stop, which they did The

officers explained to Fontaine the reason why he was being stopped and requested proof of

ownership of the scooter Fontaine stated that he had built the scooter from scratch, but when

Officer Connors checked the VIN number on the scooter, he noted that it matched the VIN number

on Polydore s title Fontaine was subsequently arrested and charged

       These facts are not in dispute Accordingly, the Court finds that there is nothing here that

would constitute fruit of a poisonous tree The officers did not violate Fontaine 3 Fourth
People v Matthew Fontame
Case No ST 2020 CR 00040                      Cite as 2022 VI Supei 37U
Memmandum Opinion
Page 5 of 6



Amendment rights; they performed a lawful investigatory stop after having received sufficient

information to establish a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was in progress The

statement by Fontaine was not fruit of a poisonous tree




   The Court will also deny Fontaine’s reguest for an evidentiary hearing on this motion

        An evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress is only necessary when a defendant 3

moving papers demonstrate significant, disputed factual issues People v Aimstrong, 64 V I 528,

539 (2016) (concluding that ‘the Superior Court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing

whenever a factual dispute exists that requires it to weigh the evidence ); United States v Sophie

 (7th Cir 1990) ( A district court does not have to hold an evidentiary hearing

on a motion just because a party asks for one ) That is, to warrant an evidentiary hearing, a motion

to suppress must present that a factual dispute exists based on definite specific, detailed, and

nonconjectural facts   US 1 Fostel 

 (D Del 2003)

        Here Fontaine does not argue that there a1e disputed facts Fontaine s motion to suppress

includes a summary of the facts that was taken from Officer Connors Probable Cause Fact Sheet

As a result, the parties include an almost identical account of what transpired Fontaine does not

demonstrate that there are facts to be disputed, nor does he make any bald faced allegations of

misconduct    United States v Vozgt 89 F 3d 1050, 1067 (3d Cir 1996) Rather Fontaine contends

that he was detained, questioned, searched, and arrested without a warrant, which the Court has

already discounted above; he does not allege any factual disputes that would necessitate a hearing

Indeed the material facts to this matter ale uncontroverted and the parties have adopted the same
People v Matthew Fontame
Case No ST 2020 CR 00040                      Cite as 

Mem01andum Opinion
Page 6 of 6



recounting of what ensued Therefore, the Court will not hold an evidentiary hearing on this

motion

                                         CONCLUSION


         The facts here, as presented by both parties, do not lead the Court to find that there is a

genuine dispute of material fact Fontaine does not present facts to meet the threshold of a motion

to suppress As a result, Fontaine is not entitled to a hearing on this motion The officers conducted

a lawful investigatory stop after receiving specific, articulable facts that Fontaine was involved in

stealing a scooter The Court will, therefore, deny the motion to suppress and demand for a healing



DATED         March /g 2022                             é? ? a éflé                              :
                                                                 Kathleen ackay
                                                          Judge of the Superior Court
                                                                of the Virgin Islands
ATTEST
TAMARA CHARLES
Clerk of the Court

BY             @‘
 «Ry LATOYA CAMACHO
         Court Clerk Supervisor 05 Q] gig