STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT AROOSTOOK, ss DOCKET NO. CR-18-00006
STATE OF MAINE ) ) ) vs ) DECISION ON MOTION ) ) RUSSELL J. HAFFORD ) Defendant )
Pending before the court is the Defendant's Motion to Suppress 1. For the reasons set forth
herein, the court denies this motion.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On January 5, 2018 at approximately 10:45 pm, Maine State Police Trooper Nathan
Derosier was on routine patrol and was northbound on Rt. 161 in the vicinity of Cross Lake. The
officer was driving his marked State Police cruiser and he was in full uniform. The weather that
evening was brutally cold with blowing snow.
Trooper Derosier observed a man dressed only in light clothing, meaning unsuitable for
the prevailing weather conditions. The man was walking southbound along the edge of the road.
The man was the Defendant. Out of concern for the Defendant's safety, Trooper Derosier pulled
over and stopped his cruiser. He did not activate his blue lights. He got out of his cruiser and
went to speak with the man. He asked the Defendant why he was out walking in such
conditions. The Defendant advised that he had "rolled" his vehicle and that he was going to get
1 Included within the Defendant's motion is a separate part of the motion that contends that the State bad committed a discovery violation by failing to tum over a video recording of the administration of the Defendant's intoxilizer test As of the date of this hearing, the State had provided that video to the Defendant. For that reason, the court dismisses that part of the motion that seeks suppression of the intoxilizer test result as a sanction for a discovery violation. The dismissal is without prejudice. Once the Defendant has had a chance to view the video, if he perceives a basis for a remedial motion based on the video, he will be granted leave to bring that motion.
1 help . He said that he was going to his friend's home near St. Peter's store on Rt. 161. Being
familiar with the area, the officer recognized that the store and therefore the friend's home were
at least several miles away from their present location. The officer asked the Defendant if he was
injured and the Defendant indicated that he was not.
Trooper Derosier asked the Defendant if he needed help and could the officer call a
wrecker for him? The Defendant accepted the officer's offer of assistance. He agreed to
accompany the officer back to the accident scene to wait for the wrecker. There being no other
options to provide for the Defendant's safety, the officer invited the Defendant to step into his
vehicle out of the cold and windy weather conditions. The Defendant accepted the offer and got
in. As the Defendant moved towards the trooper's vehicle, Trooper Derosier observed the
Defendant stumble slightly; the officer did not immediately find this to be significant because of
the strong winds and blowing snow.
As the Defendant prepared to get into the cruiser, the officer asked if had any weapons on
his person. The Defendant simply opened his jacket to show that he did not. The officer did not
otherwise seek to "pat down" the Defendant or do any other kind of protective search. He did not
place the Defendant in handcuffs. He simply cleared away some items from the passenger seat of
his vehicle and the Defendant got in. Soon after the Defendant entered the vehicle, Trooper
Derosier could smell the odor of intoxicating liquor.
The two men proceeded back to the location of the Defendant's vehicle. It took only a
minute to get there and the two men engaged in only limited "small talk". The Defendant's
vehicle was on its side approximately 1h mile from where the officer had first encountered the
Defendant. The vehicle's location was close to the intersection of the Ouellette Road and Rt. 161
near a sharp corner in the road. This is a very rural area and there are very few homes and no
2 public areas, stores or similar opportunities for shelter from the adverse weather conditions. The
area was one of open fields without any adjacent protective forest to provide a wind break.
Shortly after the Defendant got into the vehicle, the officer recognized him from two
previous non-professional encounters. On one occasion, the officer had encountered the
Defendant at a deer tagging station in Allagash; on another occasion, the officer had offered
assistance to the Defendant and his mother in dragging out of the woods a moose they had shot.
Shawn Merrill, a volunteer fire fighter with the North Lakes Fire Department was at the
scene when they arrived. Mr. Merrill had activated the emergency lights on his vehicle. The
trooper also activated his emergency vehicle lights.
In anticipation of preparing a routine accident report, Trooper Derosier asked the
Defendant for his driver's license, motor vehicle registration and his proof of insurance. The
Defendant got out of the trooper' s vehicle and went to get these documents. The officer also got
out of the vehicle and went to take some pictures of the Defendant's vehicle on its side.
At no time did the Defendant ask to get out of the vehicle. At no time did the officer tell
the Defendant that he could not get out of the vehicle.
The weather continued to be very cold and the officer asked the Defendant to get back
into the cruiser. Once inside the cruiser again, the officer asked the Defendant how much he had
to drink. The Defendant responded that he had consumed only one Budweiser beer. The officer
asked if he had consumed the beer before or after the accident. The trooper testified that at this
point, his accident investigation had evolved into an "Olli investigation."
The Trooper asked the Defendant if they could move to a safer location and away from
the sharp comer where the accident had taken place for the purpose of conducting some field
sobriety tests. The Defendant agreed. The Trooper told the Defendant that he was not under
3 arrest. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this. The Trooper asked the Defendant
which wrecker service he would like the officer to call. The Defendant responded that the officer
should call "Twins" and the officer did so.
Throughout the entire encounter, both men were cordial to each other. There were no
loud voices or confrontational exchanges.
DISCUSSION
The Defendant contends that the officer's questions of the Defendant constituted a
custodial interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings. The Law Court has indicated
that:
In order for statements made prior to a Miranda warning to be admissible, the State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the statements were made while the person was not in custody, or was not subject to interrogation. Whether a person was in custody depends on "whether a reasonable person, standing in the defendant's shoes, would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. (State v. Bragg, 2102 :ME 102, ,rs, 48 A.3d 769,771; internal citations omitted)
The Defendant contends that, when he made the statements to Trooper Derosier in his
cruiser regarding how much he had to drink and when he had consumed that alcohol and when
he went with the trooper to perform field sobriety tests he was in custody and entitled to Miranda
warnings.
The State responds that the Defendant was subject only to an investigatory detention,
more commonly known as a Terry stop.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT AROOSTOOK, ss DOCKET NO. CR-18-00006
STATE OF MAINE ) ) ) vs ) DECISION ON MOTION ) ) RUSSELL J. HAFFORD ) Defendant )
Pending before the court is the Defendant's Motion to Suppress 1. For the reasons set forth
herein, the court denies this motion.
FINDINGS OF FACT
On January 5, 2018 at approximately 10:45 pm, Maine State Police Trooper Nathan
Derosier was on routine patrol and was northbound on Rt. 161 in the vicinity of Cross Lake. The
officer was driving his marked State Police cruiser and he was in full uniform. The weather that
evening was brutally cold with blowing snow.
Trooper Derosier observed a man dressed only in light clothing, meaning unsuitable for
the prevailing weather conditions. The man was walking southbound along the edge of the road.
The man was the Defendant. Out of concern for the Defendant's safety, Trooper Derosier pulled
over and stopped his cruiser. He did not activate his blue lights. He got out of his cruiser and
went to speak with the man. He asked the Defendant why he was out walking in such
conditions. The Defendant advised that he had "rolled" his vehicle and that he was going to get
1 Included within the Defendant's motion is a separate part of the motion that contends that the State bad committed a discovery violation by failing to tum over a video recording of the administration of the Defendant's intoxilizer test As of the date of this hearing, the State had provided that video to the Defendant. For that reason, the court dismisses that part of the motion that seeks suppression of the intoxilizer test result as a sanction for a discovery violation. The dismissal is without prejudice. Once the Defendant has had a chance to view the video, if he perceives a basis for a remedial motion based on the video, he will be granted leave to bring that motion.
1 help . He said that he was going to his friend's home near St. Peter's store on Rt. 161. Being
familiar with the area, the officer recognized that the store and therefore the friend's home were
at least several miles away from their present location. The officer asked the Defendant if he was
injured and the Defendant indicated that he was not.
Trooper Derosier asked the Defendant if he needed help and could the officer call a
wrecker for him? The Defendant accepted the officer's offer of assistance. He agreed to
accompany the officer back to the accident scene to wait for the wrecker. There being no other
options to provide for the Defendant's safety, the officer invited the Defendant to step into his
vehicle out of the cold and windy weather conditions. The Defendant accepted the offer and got
in. As the Defendant moved towards the trooper's vehicle, Trooper Derosier observed the
Defendant stumble slightly; the officer did not immediately find this to be significant because of
the strong winds and blowing snow.
As the Defendant prepared to get into the cruiser, the officer asked if had any weapons on
his person. The Defendant simply opened his jacket to show that he did not. The officer did not
otherwise seek to "pat down" the Defendant or do any other kind of protective search. He did not
place the Defendant in handcuffs. He simply cleared away some items from the passenger seat of
his vehicle and the Defendant got in. Soon after the Defendant entered the vehicle, Trooper
Derosier could smell the odor of intoxicating liquor.
The two men proceeded back to the location of the Defendant's vehicle. It took only a
minute to get there and the two men engaged in only limited "small talk". The Defendant's
vehicle was on its side approximately 1h mile from where the officer had first encountered the
Defendant. The vehicle's location was close to the intersection of the Ouellette Road and Rt. 161
near a sharp corner in the road. This is a very rural area and there are very few homes and no
2 public areas, stores or similar opportunities for shelter from the adverse weather conditions. The
area was one of open fields without any adjacent protective forest to provide a wind break.
Shortly after the Defendant got into the vehicle, the officer recognized him from two
previous non-professional encounters. On one occasion, the officer had encountered the
Defendant at a deer tagging station in Allagash; on another occasion, the officer had offered
assistance to the Defendant and his mother in dragging out of the woods a moose they had shot.
Shawn Merrill, a volunteer fire fighter with the North Lakes Fire Department was at the
scene when they arrived. Mr. Merrill had activated the emergency lights on his vehicle. The
trooper also activated his emergency vehicle lights.
In anticipation of preparing a routine accident report, Trooper Derosier asked the
Defendant for his driver's license, motor vehicle registration and his proof of insurance. The
Defendant got out of the trooper' s vehicle and went to get these documents. The officer also got
out of the vehicle and went to take some pictures of the Defendant's vehicle on its side.
At no time did the Defendant ask to get out of the vehicle. At no time did the officer tell
the Defendant that he could not get out of the vehicle.
The weather continued to be very cold and the officer asked the Defendant to get back
into the cruiser. Once inside the cruiser again, the officer asked the Defendant how much he had
to drink. The Defendant responded that he had consumed only one Budweiser beer. The officer
asked if he had consumed the beer before or after the accident. The trooper testified that at this
point, his accident investigation had evolved into an "Olli investigation."
The Trooper asked the Defendant if they could move to a safer location and away from
the sharp comer where the accident had taken place for the purpose of conducting some field
sobriety tests. The Defendant agreed. The Trooper told the Defendant that he was not under
3 arrest. The Defendant acknowledged that he understood this. The Trooper asked the Defendant
which wrecker service he would like the officer to call. The Defendant responded that the officer
should call "Twins" and the officer did so.
Throughout the entire encounter, both men were cordial to each other. There were no
loud voices or confrontational exchanges.
DISCUSSION
The Defendant contends that the officer's questions of the Defendant constituted a
custodial interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings. The Law Court has indicated
that:
In order for statements made prior to a Miranda warning to be admissible, the State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the statements were made while the person was not in custody, or was not subject to interrogation. Whether a person was in custody depends on "whether a reasonable person, standing in the defendant's shoes, would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave. (State v. Bragg, 2102 :ME 102, ,rs, 48 A.3d 769,771; internal citations omitted)
The Defendant contends that, when he made the statements to Trooper Derosier in his
cruiser regarding how much he had to drink and when he had consumed that alcohol and when
he went with the trooper to perform field sobriety tests he was in custody and entitled to Miranda
warnings.
The State responds that the Defendant was subject only to an investigatory detention,
more commonly known as a Terry stop. See State v. DonatellL 2010 :ME 43, ,r,r 11-12, 995 A.2d
238. This distinction is key because, as a general rule, "persons temporarily detained pursuant to
such stops are not 'in custody' for the purposes ofMiranda." Berkemer v. McCarcy, 468 U.S. 420,
439-40, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 82 L. Ed. 2d 317 (1984)
To qualify as a mere Terry stop, a detention must be limited in scope and executed
through the least restrictive means ( quotation marks omitted). Brief investigatory detentions are
4 justified when they are based on "specific and articulable facts," and can be solely for safety
concerns as part of the "community caretaking function[]" of police officers, which includes
"investigat[ing] vehicle accidents in which there is no claim of criminal liability." State v.
Pinkham, 565 A.2d 318, 319-20 (Me. 1989) (quotation marks omitted). As we said in State v.
Gulick 2000 ME 170, P 10 n.4, 759 A.2d 1085, "[a] briefrestriction on a citizen's right to walk
(or drive) away is usually referred to as a detention or a stop in order to distinguish the more
limited restriction from a restriction commensurate with arrest."
The court concludes that the Defendant was never in custody for purposes of the Miranda
analysis. Upon observing the lightly dressed Defendant walking along a remote stretch of Maine
road at night and under brutally cold winter weather conditions, Trooper Derosier would have
been derelict in his duty if had not stopped to check on the Defendant's well-being. Upon
learning of the Defendant's "roll over" accident, the officer simply began a routine accident
investigation so that he could prepare a report as he is required to do upon learning of a motor
vehicle accident. The Defendant did not acquire an "in custody" status by accepting Trooper
Derosier' s offer of assistance in returning to the scene and calling for a wrecker. The Defendant
voluntarily returned to the scene with the officer so that he could collect his license, vehicle
registration and insurance information for the officer's report. That the Defendant was not in
custody is demonstrated by his getting out of the cruiser at the scene and going to collect his
documentation without asking for permission to do so. He knew that he was not subject to any
kind of restraint.
Nor did the Defendant enter into "custody" when he got back into the police cruiser. In
deed, in order to protect himself from the adverse winter weather conditions and having no other
viable options, the Defendant really had no choice but to accept Trooper Derosier' s offer of
5 "shelter". He was in the police vehicle because it was the only place that anyone in their right
mind would want to be in such weather conditions. Essentially, he was there by virtue of his "de
facto consent". He willingly, and quite sensibly, accepted an invitation of shelter from the
elements. This is not a custodial detention tantamount to "de facto" arrest.
It is true that once in the cruiser, a routine "motor vehicle accident investigation" evolved
into an "OUI investigation." The motor vehicle accident, the brief "stumble" that the officer had
initially observed and the odor of intoxicating liquor were competent to create an objectively
reasonable articulable suspicion that perhaps the Defendant had committed the crime of
operating under the influence. This court would find that Trooper Derosier' s limited detention of
the Defendant and his preliminary limited questioning of the Defendant did not exceed
constitutional bounds. As indicated herein, the officer was within constitutional bounds to detain
the Defendant briefly and to make some limited inquiries as part of his initial "OUI
investigation". In making this brief detention, in asking some preliminary limited questions and
in asking the Defendant to perform several field sobriety tests in a safer location, Trooper
Derosier did not take the Defendant into custody and thereby trigger any obligation to provide
Miranda warnings. The court concludes that the State has met its burden of proving by a
preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant was not in custody at the relevant time and
was therefore not entitled to Miranda warnings.
The entry shall be: The Defendant's z ~ ~'-ni-ed_.__ Date: September 11, 2018 E. Allen Hunter Justice, Superior Court (Active Retired)