State of Maine v. Bonenfant

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: January 30, 2017
• Docket: KENcr-15-942
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss. CRll\1INAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CD CR-15-942

ST A TE OF MAINE,

DECISION AND ORDER

v.

DEREK DANIEL BONENFANT,

Defendant

BEFORE THE COURT

This matter comes before the court on Defendant Derek Daniel

Bonenfant's (defendant or Bonenfant) Motion to Suppress all evidence seized on

the grounds that there was no probable cause for arrest. The State has charged

Bonenfant with Aggravated Criminal Operating Under the Influence (OUI),

Class B, in violation of 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2411(1-A), (D)(2). The Indictment alleges

that he operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants, he

failed to submit to a test at the request of law enforcement officer and he was

convicted of two Operating Under the Influence, respectively in Ke1rnebec

Superior Court, Docket No. CR-07-974 and Docket No CR-08-832.

FACTS

Kennebec County Sheri££ Frank Hatch stopped Bonenfant for speeding 46

mph in a posted 35 mph zone. Hatch activated his blue lights at the bottom of a

hill and although Bonenfant slowed down, he continued to operate his vehicle

for more than one half a mile before he pulled over and stopped his vehicle. Hatch made contact with the operator of the vehicle who produced a Maine

identification card but stated he did not have a license. Hatch could detect a

strong odor of intoxicating beverages come from the driver's breath. Hatch

observed the driver had red, blood shot eyes, and his speech was a "little bit

slurred". Hatch asked the driver whether he had anything to drink and the

driver responded, "one drink." Hatch walked back to his cruiser and turned off

his strobe lights and returned to the stopped vehicle and told the driver he was

going to administer Field Sobriety Test ("FST"), to vvhich the driver said, "No,"

Hatch asked the driver a second time to submit to the FST and the driver again

said, "No." Hatch could still smell intoxicants, saw the blood shot eyes and

heard the slurred speech from time to time, and he also observed that the driver

was leaning against his vehicle, so Hatch told the driver he was going to arrest

him and take him to the station to administer a breath test.

Hatch arrested the defendant on the grounds that: it was 12:22 am; he was

speeding; he traveled a half a mile before he pulled over; he had red, blood shot I I

eyes; he admitted to having one drink; he twice refused to take the field sobriety .

tests; he had slurred speech; and he was leaning against his vehicle. However,

defendant.did not mention all of these factors in his police report; he only

mentioned statements of defendant; the odor coming from his breath; blood shot

eyes; and occasionally slurred speech. Nor did he indicate in his report there

were other factors. Defendant argues that the State is lin1ited to the specific

reasons stated in his report and these factors were insufficient for probable cause

to arrest the defendant.

2 DISCUSSION

Even if the court were to throw out the factors not specifically stated in the

police report, defendant would still fail in his argument because "[t]he probable

cause standard for requiring a person to take a blood-alcohol test has a very low

threshold ." State v. Forsyth, 2002 ME 75, 9[ 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, 9[ 71 754 A. 2d 976, 978. Probable cause

has been found on as little evidence as an improper U-turn, smell of strong 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 115,

In this case, the officer observed the defendant speeding the strong odor

of intoxicating beverages, speech at titnes a little bit slurred, and red, bloodshot l

eyes. Defendant produced an identification card but did not have a license. He

also admitted to having one drink and twice refused the field sobriety tests. The

officer is not limited to what was specifically mentioned in his report,

particularly when the officer credibly testified as to all of the factors that caused

him to believe tbat the defendant was operating a motor vehicle while under the

influence of intoxicants. These facts establish the reasonable belief of a prudent

and cautious officer that the defendant had been operating his vehicle while

under the influence, and more than justify the officer's determination to arrest

the defendant and to transport him for a breath intoxilyzer test.

3 CONCLUSION

The defendant's motion to suppress is DENIED.

The clerk shall incorporate this Order into the docket by reference

pursuant to M.R. Crim. P. 53(a).

~o DATED: January)!!>, 2017 ~- Wheeler, Justice, ARJ