State of Maine v. Cox
This text of State of Maine v. Cox (State of Maine v. Cox) 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 KENNEBEC, ss CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-11-~24 1 ;V !V) - K E..lv -· /1 ;:.; /c2o ll I (
STATE OF MAINE
v. ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS MEGAN COX,
Defendant
The defendant moves to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the stop of her
vehicle. The defendant argues that the officer lacked a reasonable articulable suspicion
to have the defendant perform field sobriety tests. For the following reasons, the
motion is denied.
FINDINGS
Maine State Police Trooper Eric Verhille has been a member of the Maine State
Police since May 2007. On April 30, 2011 at 12:05 a.m., he was on routine patrol and
followed a Subaru station wagon for two or three minutes. A video recording was
made of the station wagon as Trooper Verhille followed the vehicle.
Trooper Verhille testified, and the video confirms, that the vehicle veered to the
centerline and returned to the right several times. The vehicle was riding the centerline
as vehicles approached from the opposite direction. On one occasion, the entire tire of
the defendant's vehicle was on the yellow line. Trooper Verhille activated his
emergency lights to stop the vehicle. Trooper Verhille was concerned about the
operation he had observed and about a potential accident, especially because Route 9 in
the Chelsea - Randolph area has a series of small hills and one partial S tum. Trooper Verhille was also concerned about the possibility the operator was experiencing medical
problems. The vehicle pulled over and stopped.
Trooper Verhille approached the driver's side door and obtained a license from
the operator, Megan Cox. Trooper Verhille asked if everything was all right. The
defendant responded that it was past her bedtime, she was a student, owned a small
business in Gardiner, had been with friends, and was tired. Trooper Verhille described
the defendant's demeanor as "giddy," as though she did not appreciate the seriousness
of the situation. The video confirms that she laughed often during her conversation
with Trooper Verhille.
Trooper Verhille asked whether the defendant had had anything to drink. She
first responded that she had one glass of wine at 7:30. Trooper Verhille asked again
how many drinks she had and the defendant responded she had two glasses of wine.
The defendant had no slurred speech, no odor of intoxicating beverage, no bloodshot or
glassy eyes, no manual dexterity problems, and no mental acuity problems. She did not
give the trooper all of the correct documents, however, initially.
Trooper Verhille concluded that the defendant was impaired by alcohol based on
her operation and admission she had consumed alcohol. He requested that she exit the
vehicle 1 and conducted standard field sobriety tests.
CONCLUSIONS
Field Sobriety Tests
Trooper Verhille had "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with
rational inferences from those facts," warranted the administration of field sobriety
tests. State v. Wood, 662 A.2d 919, 920 (Me. 1995) (quoting State v. Dulac, 600 A.2d
2 1121, 1122 (Me. 1991)); State v. Little, 468 A.2d 615, 617-18 (Me. 1983). The defendant's
operation of her vehicle, her admission to drinking alcohol and changing the amount
consumed upon further inquiry, and her failure to give all documents to Trooper
Verhille when first requested provided the required basis to administer the field
sobriety tests.
The entry is
The Defendant's Motion to Suppress is D .
Date: November 8, 2011 ancy Mills Justice, Superior
1 Trooper Verhille conducted an HGN test while the defendant was seated in her vehicle. The State stipulated that conducting this test in a vehicle is not a proper administration of the test and the test should be given no weight by the court.
3 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT vs KENNEBEC, ss. MEGAN E COX Docket No AUGSC-CR-2011-00524 112 BARTON ROAD WINDSOR ME 04363 DOCKET RECORD
DOB: 02/26/1981 Attorney: WILLIAM BLY State's Attorney: EVERT FOWLE LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM T BLY 50 ADAMS STREET PO BOX 1871 BIDDEFORD ME 04005 RETAINED 05/31/2011
Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: MISDEMEANOR (CLASS D,E) Filing Date: 05/02/2011
Charge(s)
1 OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 04/30/2011 CHELSEA Seq 11493 29-A 2411 (1-A) (A) Class D
Docket Events:
07/14/2011 Charge(s): 1 TRANSFER- TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL EDI ON 07/14/2011 at 06:00p.m.
TRANSFERRED CASE: SENDING COURT CASEID AUGDCCR201100663 FILING DOCUMENT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 05/02/2011
Charge(s): 1 HEARING- ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 07/13/2011 at 10:00 a.m. in Room No. 1
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT WAIVED ON 07/13/2011
BAIL BOND - $250.00 UNSECURED BAIL BOND FILED ON 05/02/2011
Bail Amt: $250 Date Bailed: 04/30/2011 Party(s): MEGAN E COX ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 05/31/2011
Attorney: WILLIAM BLY Charge(s): 1 SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - COMPLAINT FILED ON 05/26/2011
Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 05/31/2011
Charge(s): 1 PLEA - NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 07/13/2011
CR 200 Page 1 of 3 Printed on: 11/09/2011 MEGAN E COX AUGSC-CR-2011-00524 DOCKET RECORD Charge(s): 1 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL REQUESTED ON 07/13/2011
Charge(s): 1 FINDING - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL TRANSFERRED ON 07/14/2011
AUGSC 07/15/2011 Charge(s): 1 FINDING - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL TRANSFERRED ON 07/14/2011
AUGSC 07/19/2011 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 09/06/2011 at 09:30 a.m.
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 07/19/2011 Charge(s): 1 TRIAL - DOCKET CALL SCHEDULED FOR 09/06/2011 at 09:30 a.m.
07/19/2011 Charge(s): 1 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL RECVD BY COURT ON 07/15/2011
AUGDCCR2011663 07/21/2011 LETTER - REQUEST FOR PROTECTION FILED ON 06/22/2011
09/08/2011 MOTION - MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 09/06/2011
09/08/2011 MOTION - MOTION FOR SANCTIONS DENIED ON 09/06/2011 M MICHAELA MURPHY , JUSTICE DENIED AS TO SANCTIONS, GRANTED AS TO 2 VIDEOS TO BE PROVIDED BY 9/9/11, ALSO WITH WET BATH RECORDS 09/08/2011 Charge(s): 1 TRIAL - DOCKET CALL HELD ON 09/06/2011 M MICHAELA MURPHY JUSTICE I
Defendant Present in Court 09/08/2011 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS CONTINUED ON 09/06/2011
09/08/2011 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 10/04/2011 at 10:00 a.m.
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 09/08/2011 Charge(s): 1 TRIAL - DOCKET CALL SCHEDULED FOR 10/04/2011 at 10:00 a.m.
10/04/2011 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 10/04/2011
DEFENDANT'S AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS 10/04/2011 HEARING- MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 10/04/2011 at 10:00 a.m.
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 10/04/2011 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS CONTINUED ON 10/04/2011
10/04/2011 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 10/05/2011 at 11:00 a.m.
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 10/04/2011 Charge(s): 1 CR 200 Page 2 of 3 Printed on: 11/09/2011 MEGAN E COX AUGSC-CR-2011-00524 DOCKET RECORD TRIAL - DOCKET CALL HELD ON 10/04/2011 NANCY MILLS , JUSTICE Defendant Present in Court 10/04/2011 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS CONTINUED ON 10/04/2011
10/20/2011 CASE STATUS - CASE FILE LOCATION ON 10/20/2011
JUSTICE MILLS HAS FILE UNDER ADVISEMENT 10/21/2011 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS HELD ON 10/05/2011 NANCY MILLS , JUSTICE Defendant Present in Court
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. Cox, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-cox-mesuperct-2011.