State of Maine v. Amergian
This text of State of Maine v. Amergian (State of Maine v. Amergian) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-09-697t3 0 J fI \)J-C U{Y) ," I n- !'){; / "'" TJ / /;20 I \~t'1)8 "!i!fl v." L'-IU ,.. P 3: 22 / ' STATE OF MAINE,
Plaintiff DECISION AND ORDER
v.
RALPH AMERGIAN,
Defendant
BEFORE THE COURT
This matter comes before the court on Defendant Ralph Amergian's
(defendant or Amergian) Motion to Suppress all evidence seized on the grounds
that there was no probable cause for arrest. The State has charged Amergian
with Operating Under the Influence (OU!), Class D, in violation of 29-A
M.R.S.A. § 2411(1-A), (B)(l). The Complaint alleges that he had a blood alcohol
level of 0.12% and one previous OUI conviction with a 10-year period.
FACTS
Amergian was stopped for failure to dim the headlights of his motor
vehicle. The arresting officer was traveling southbound on Route 100 coming out
of a 35 mph zone into a 50 mph zone when he encountered a vehicle traveling
northbound with its high beams on. That vehicle continued on without dimming
its high beams. The officer turned his vehicle around, activated the emergency
lights and stopped defendant's vehicle. Defendant was operating a Jeep Rambler, with the windows zipped out and his leg half outside of the driver's
door.
Amergian's speech was sluggish, his eyes were bloodshot and glassy, and
the officer could smell intoxicants coming from the vehicle. Defendant was the
only occupant in the vehicle. The officer asked defendant where he was coming
from and defendant responded that he was coming from a get together with
some of his friends who were planning a bachelor party for the next day. When
asked whether he had anything to drink, defendant responded, "two beers." The
officer returned to his vehicle to run defendant's license and learned defendant
had a prior OUI. The officer returned to the defendant's vehicle and advised the
defendant that he was going to do some field sobriety tests (FST) to determine
his intoxication level and whether it would be safe for him to drive. The officer
based his decision to administer FST on the combination of failure to dim lights,
odor of intoxicants, glassy, bloodshot eyes, lackadaisical nature, coming back
from bachelor party planning with friends and his admission to drinking. The
court concludes that information pertaining to a prior OUI also played a role in
the officer's decision to administer FST.
The officer asked defendant to step to the rear of vehicle and then
proceeded to administer the FST. On the HGN, for which the officer is not
certified, the officer concluded that defendant demonstrated all 6 clues for
intoxication. On the walk and turn test, he concluded that defendant disclosed 3
clues of intoxication, raising his arms during the instructional phase, stepping
out of line, and stopping, letting out a small frustrating yelp, composing himself
and then continuing with the test. On the one leg stand, defendant disclosed 2
clues, raising his hand above 6 inches, placing his foot down, and stopping with
2 frustrated mumbling, composing himself and completing the test. After the one
leg stand, the officer asked defendant, where would he place himself on a scale
of 1 to 10, from sober to most intoxicated. Defendant responded, "between a 3.5
and 4." When asked by the officer if he were okay to drive, defendant responded
that he was not. The officer then decided to perform one more FST because of
his lack of certification for the HGN, that is the finger dexterity test, for which the
officer is also not trained and has performed only once before. On this test, the
. defendant "had an issue with counting" but was otherwise able to count to four
and back to one three times, touching thumb tip to finger tip on each count. The
officer then arrested defendant for OUI based on the totality of the
circumstances, including failing to dim high beams, admission of consumption of
alcohol, odor of intoxicants, glassy, bloodshot eyes, his sluggish manner, clues in
the FSTs, admission of a 3.5 to a 4 along the sobriety continuum, admission of
inability to drive, and coming back from planning party with friends for a
bachelor party.
DISCUSSION
Even if the court were to throw out the HGN test results and the finger
dexterity test results, defendant would still fail in his argument because "[tJhe
probable cause standard for requiring a person to take a blood-alcohol test has a
very low threshold." State v. Forsyth, 2002 ME 75, err 14, 795 A. 2d 66, 70 (citations
omitted) "For there to be probable cause for OUI, an officer only needs evidence
sufficient to support the reasonable belief'that the person's senses are affected to
the slightest degree, or to any extent, by alcohol that the person has had to
drink.'" Id. citing State v. Webster, 2000 ME 115, err 7, 754 A. 2d 976, 978. Probable
cause has been found on as little evidence as an improper u-turn, smell of strong
3 odor of alcohol on the defendant's breath and hearing the defendant make an
incredible statement believed to be made to cover-up the defendant's
impairment. See State v. Webster, 2000 ME lIS, In this case, the officer observed the failure to dim headlights, the smell of alcohol, defendant's lackadaisical and sluggish manner, and glassy, bloodshot eyes. Amergian admi tted to drinking and placed himself on a sobriety continuum at 3.5 to 4. Arnergian also signaled impairment with the clues in the walk and turn test and one leg stand test. These facts establish the reasonable belief of a prudent and cautious officer that Arnergian had been operating his vehicle while under the influence, and more than justify the officer's determination to arrest the defendant. CONCLUSION The defendant's motion to suppress is DENIED. The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference pursuant to M.R. erim. P. 53(a). DATED: January 28,2010 4 STATE OF MAINE vs RALPH S AMERGIAN, JR Docket No CUMCD-CR-2009-06973 4 FAIRVIEW AVE GRAY ME 04039 DOCKET RECORD DOB: 07/24/1983 Attorney: WILLIAM CHILDS State's Attorney: STEPHANIE ANDERSON CHILDS RUNDLETT FIFIELD SHUMWAY LLC 350 E BRIDGE STREET WESTBROOK ME 04092 RETAINED 10/14/2009 Charge(s) 1 OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE-1 PRIOR 08/28/2009 CUMBERLAND Seq 9879 29-A 2411 (l-A) (B) (1) Class D WOODCOCK / CMB Docket Events: 09/02/2009 FILING DOCUMENT - CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 09/01/2009 09/02/2009 Charge (s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 10/27/2009 @ 8:30 in Room No. 1 NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 09/02/2009 BAIL BOND - $200.00 CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 09/01/2009 Bail Receipt Type: CR Bail Amt: $200 Receipt Type: CK Date Bailed: 08/28/2009 Prvdr Name: RALPH AMERGIAN Rtrn Name: 988 10/08/2009 Charge (s): 1 SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - COMPLAINT FILED ON 10/07/2009 JAMES TURCOTTE, ASSISTANT CLERK 10/14/2009 Party(s): RALPH S AMERGIAN JR ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 10/14/2009 Attorney: WILLIAM CHILDS 10/29/2009 Charge (5): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT WAIVED ON 10/27/2009 @ 8:30 in Room No. 1 10/ 2 9 / 2 0 0 9 Cha rge (s): 1 PLEA - NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY COUNSEL ON 10/27/2009 @ 8:30 in Room No. 1 10/29/2009 Charge (s): 1 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 01/14/2010 @ 2:00 in Room No. 7
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Maine v. Amergian, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-amergian-mesuperct-2010.