CJA105 LASA 2 Case of State v. Patino On October 4, 2009, Trisha Oliver went to the bedroom of her six-year-old son, Marco Nieves, and found that he was unresponsive and not breathing. She immediately called 911. Nearby units from the fire and police departments were dispatched to the apartment, along with an ambulance. Marco was transported to the hospital and the police interviewed Marco’s mother, Trisha Oliver, to gather information regarding Marco’s condition. Trisha escorted Sergeant Kite through the apartment where he observed soiled bedding in Marco’s bedroom and dark colored vomit in the toilet. Also present in the apartment were another child and Trisha’s boyfriend, Michael Patino. Another officer transported Trisha to the hospital to be with her son. As Sgt. Kite was standing in the kitchen, he observed a cell phone buzzing on the counter. Thinking it might be Marco’s father or someone calling about Marco’s condition, the sergeant pushed buttons on the cell phone and observed a text message that contained potential evidence of a crime. Up to this point in time, Sgt. Kite believed he had responded to assist with a medical emergency, but after reading the text message, he believed that the child may have been the victim of a crime and the apartment may be a crime scene. He summoned a forensic team and he sent officers to get search warrants for the apartment and for the cell phone and other cell phones found in the apartment. Once a responsible party arrived to care for the second child, Sgt. Kite invited the boyfriend, Michael Patino to the police station for an interview. Patino voluntarily went to the station. A cell phone in his possession that was owned by Trisha Oliver was seized at the police station. It was determined that the cell phones belonged to Trisha Oliver. She subsequently gave written consent to search her cell phone and search warrants were obtained to search the apartment and all of the cell phones belonging to Oliver. Incriminating evidence was found on the cell phones that indicated Marco Nieves had been physically abused and injured by Michael Patino. At the police station, Patino was arrested, advised of his rights and he eventually admitted to striking the boy in the ribs and giving the victim a “body shot”. Patino stated that “Marco was acting stupid and I hit him”. Six-year-old Marco Nieves died of his injuries at 6:00 P.M. on the same day he was transported to the hospital. He had sustained ruptured intestines from blunt forced trauma. The prosecuting attorney charged Michael Patino with first-degree murder. After being arraigned and pleading not guilty, lengthy pre-trial hearings were conducted regarding the evidence that was used as probable cause in the case. Defense attorneys filed motions to suppress the cell phone evidence and the confession of Patino as “fruit of the poisonous tree”. They argued that Sgt. Kite’s initial viewing of Trisha Oli.

1. CJA105 LASA 2
Case of State v. Patino
On October 4, 2009, Trisha Oliver went to the bedroom of her
six-year-old son, Marco Nieves,
and found that he was unresponsive and not breathing. She
immediately called 911. Nearby
units from the fire and police departments were dispatched to
the apartment, along with an
ambulance. Marco was transported to the hospital and the
police interviewed Marco’s mother,
Trisha Oliver, to gather information regarding Marco’s
condition.
Trisha escorted Sergeant Kite through the apartment where he
observed soiled bedding in
Marco’s bedroom and dark colored vomit in the toilet. Also
present in the apartment were
another child and Trisha’s boyfriend, Michael Patino. Another
officer transported Trisha to the
hospital to be with her son. As Sgt. Kite was standing in the
kitchen, he observed a cell phone
buzzing on the counter. Thinking it might be Marco’s father or
someone calling about Marco’s
condition, the sergeant pushed buttons on the cell phone and
observed a text message that
contained potential evidence of a crime. Up to this point in
time, Sgt. Kite believed he had
responded to assist with a medical emergency, but after reading
the text message, he believed
that the child may have been the victim of a crime and the

2. apartment may be a crime scene. He
summoned a forensic team and he sent officers to get search
warrants for the apartment and for
the cell phone and other cell phones found in the apartment.
Once a responsible party arrived to care for the second child,
Sgt. Kite invited the boyfriend,
Michael Patino to the police station for an interview. Patino
voluntarily went to the station. A
cell phone in his possession that was owned by Trisha Oliver
was seized at the police station.
It was determined that the cell phones belonged to Trisha
Oliver. She subsequently gave written
consent to search her cell phone and search warrants were
obtained to search the apartment and
all of the cell phones belonging to Oliver. Incriminating
evidence was found on the cell phones
that indicated Marco Nieves had been physically abused and
injured by Michael Patino. At the
police station, Patino was arrested, advised of his rights and he
eventually admitted to striking
the boy in the ribs and giving the victim a “body shot”. Patino
stated that “Marco was acting
stupid and I hit him”.
Six-year-old Marco Nieves died of his injuries at 6:00 P.M. on
the same day he was transported
to the hospital. He had sustained ruptured intestines from blunt
forced trauma.
The prosecuting attorney charged Michael Patino with first-
degree murder. After being
arraigned and pleading not guilty, lengthy pre-trial hearings
were conducted regarding the
evidence that was used as probable cause in the case. Defense

3. attorneys filed motions to
suppress the cell phone evidence and the confession of Patino as
“fruit of the poisonous tree”.
They argued that Sgt. Kite’s initial viewing of Trisha Oliver’s
cell phone messages without a
search warrant constituted an unlawful search and seizure.
They argued that all evidence,
including the confession, obtained after the unlawful search was
also unlawfully obtained and
should be inadmissible as evidence. The Superior Court judge
who heard the motions agreed
CJA105 LASA 2
with the defense attorneys and ruled that the initial cell phone
messages and all subsequent
evidence in the case was inadmissible. She agreed that the
initial cell phone evidence was
obtained without probable cause or a search warrant and the
defendant, Patino, has a reasonable
expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment to the
Constitution.
The prosecuting attorney appealed the ruling of the Superior
Court to the Rhode Island Supreme
Court arguing that the evidence was lawfully obtained. The
Supreme Court thoroughly reviewed
the arguments and relevant court decisions. The Supreme Court
reversed the rulings of the lower
court and remanded the case back to the Superior Court for
trial. The Supreme Court ruled that
the cell phone belonged to Tricia Oliver and that Michael Patino
had no legal expectation of
privacy regarding messages on Oliver’s phones. The court ruled

4. that once the text messages
were transmitted and subsequently received on Oliver’s phones,
that Patino had no control over
the messages and no right to privacy.
The Supreme Court ruled that the initial viewing of the cell
phone messages did not constitute an
unlawful search and seizure because the phone belonged to
Trisha Oliver and Patino had no
control or expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court ruled that
the initial messages constituted
probable cause and that the search warrants for the cell phones
and apartment were valid. All
subsequent evidence obtained, including the confession of the
defendant was ruled admissible by
the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
The defense attorney appealed the decision of the Rhode Island
Supreme Court to the United
States Supreme Court, but the U.S. Supreme Court declined to
hear the case. The ruling of the
Rhode Island Supreme Court was, thereby, the final ruling on
the evidence.
At the trial of Michael Patino, the jury acquitted him of the
first-degree murder charge, but found
him guilty of second-degree murder. The trial judge imposed
the maximum sentence of life
imprisonment.
Patino was turned over to the Rhode Island Department of
Corrections where he was
incarcerated in a maximum-security prison. The rules of the
Department of Corrections allow
inmates sentenced to life in prison to be eligible for parole after
serving 20 years of their

5. sentences. Release on parole is subject to review of the
behavior of the inmate and the totality of
circumstances determined by a parole hearing board. Victims
have the right to attend and
present impact statements at parole hearings. Because the U.S.
Supreme Court had previously
refused to hear the case, there is no appeal available to Patino
regarding the admissibility of the
evidence.
Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ri-supreme-
court/1670599.html