A True Copy Attest: datltj t2 ~ ': : ~", \U':~ t (J Clerk of Courts , ' I ' [I C ( , STATE OF MAINE . ':I!~::-'/ SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. I '. CRIMINAL ACTION , ,', ~OCKET NO. CR-07-7P:6 .,/ ill /'\ i,: L~A\N -c.,v-~- q; !fOO? STATE OF MAINE
v. ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS
GREGORY M. HASKELL
INTRODUCTION
Pending is Haskell's motion to suppress evidence arising out of his detention on the side of the road during an investigation into an accident involving a driverless and damaged truck found on a beach in Scarborough on January 12,2007. Haskell argues that seizure occurred when he was stopped by Sgt. 0 'Neil, a uniformed officer in a marked police vehicle with his service weapon. Haskell additionally argues that when Police Officer Roberts took his driver's license and did not return it to him, seizure occurred. At either point, Haskell did not feel free to leave. Alternatively, seizure occurred when the officer reached to take the keys from Haskell's hand because Haskell's silence is not acquiescence. The state counters that there was an ongoing accident investigation and neither roadside detention, nor the taking of the license amounted to seizure. The state further argues that even if Haskell were in custody, the search was incident to an arrest or the result of inevitable discovery. Alternatively, the state contends that the officers were performing a community caretaking function with a matter that started off as an accident and they were checking for the safety and welfare of the occupants of the truck. At the hearing, the court heard only from Officer Roberts, the lead officer on the investigation. FACTS At approximately 2:19 am, January 12,2007, Officer Mark Roberts was dispatched to a truck on the beach near Black Point Road. Within a few minutes, the officer responded. The truck was on a sandy beach beyond the Yacht Club. Roberts determined that the truck must have gone down the embankment, over the rocks and onto the beach. Roberts exited his vehicle and went down the stairs near the Yacht Club and over rocks to the beach where the truck was located. He looked outside and inside the truck; no one was around. Roberts, using a flashlight, discovered that the steering wheel was bent towards the windshield, appearing that someone had hit the wheel. Sergeant O'Neil arrived a few minutes later but he did not go down to the beach. O'Neil and Roberts checked out the Yacht Club to see if anyone had gone into the Club. O'Neil then drove down Black Point Road looking for persons who might be involved. l O'Neil notified Roberts that he had located someone walking up the beach. Roberts joined O'Neil and the individual who were standing on the side of the road next to the cruiser, approximately 100 yards from the Yacht Club. Roberts spoke with the individual. At Roberts' request, the person displayed a picture ID identifying him as Gregory Haskell. Roberts held onto to Haskell's license. Roberts did not observe any sign of injury on Haskell's face. Roberts proceeded to ask a number of questions, including how he got there, where he had come from, trying to find out how the truck had ended up on the beach. Haskell told him that he was not driving, a friend was driving and he did not know what the friend's name was. In response to a question whether he had any weapons on him, Haskell reached into his pocket, pulled out his keys, reached out hand and said, "These are my keys." Roberts took the keys believing he had implied consent. Roberts pushed a button on the keys and lights on the truck went on. Roberts could smell alcohol on Haskell. Haskell told him he had been drinking, but not driving. At this point, Roberts was still trying to find out who the driver was. He was investigating an accident with significant damage. The truck had traveled 25 feet over the cliff and Roberts was concerned that someone was injured. Roberts radioed dispatch to identify Haskell and then checked Haskell's license and warrant status. Haskell was not wanted, but his license was suspended. Roberts arrested Haskell for possession of a suspended license. Sgt. O'Neil transported Haskell to the jail.
1 O'Neil was uniformed with his service weapon and traveling in a marked cruiser.
2 DISCUSSION The Law Court has discussed the constitutional implications of a seizure that is a detention or stop:
An encounter between a member of law enforcement and a citizen will implicate the protections of the Fourth Amendment only if the encounter constitutes a seizure of the citizen. A seizure occurs when the citizen's liberty is restrained by a law enforcement official such that the citizen "is not free to walk away."
State v. Gulick, 2000 ME 170, ~ 10, 759 A. 2d 1085 (citations omitted). This type of
"seizure" differs from an "arrest," which also includes the concept that the person is not
"free to walk away," but does so in the context of circumstances consistent with formal
arrest. 1d at ~. 10, n. 4. "A brief restriction 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." ld.
Here, the totality of O'Neil and Roberts' actions following their approach to
Haskell, including asking for his license, following up with questions about where he was
coming from, and having Haskell wait while Roberts ran a check on the status of any
warrants and of Haskell's right to operate a vehicle, constituted a detention, or seizure, for
Fourth Amendment purposes. This court need not determine the precise instant of the
seizure in this matter because the officers' actions were based on an initial articulable
suspicion for the contact with Haskell, as explained below, and the entire course of the
officers' actions were limited in scope and reasonable in relation to the circumstances
that initiated the contact.
A citizen may be detained only when '''specific and articulable facts which, taken
together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. '"
State v. Dulac, 600 A.2d 1121, 1122 (Me. 1992) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 21,
3 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)). This is the standard by which this court must
examine the circumstances surrounding the officers' detention of Haskell to determine if
that police action was reasonable. See Gulick, 2000 ME at ~12. An officer may make
brief intrusions "based upon reasonable and articulable (1) safety concerns; (2) suspicion
that the defendant has committed a crime; or (3) suspicion that the defendant has
committed a traffic infraction" without violating the Fourth Amendment. Id. at ~ 13
(citations omitted). When O'Neil and Roberts approached Haskell on foot shortly after
2: 19 am, they had a clearly articulated and objectively reasonable concern for the safety
of anyone who may have been in the truck when it went over the cliff and dropped 25
feet to the beach. A police officer has a "legitimate role as a public servant to assist those
in distress and to maintain and foster public safety." Id. at ~ 14.
Roberts' request to see Haskell's license was a "minimal further intrusion," and
the request itself does not need to be supported independently by a reasonable articulable
suspicion if the subsequent actions were "reasonably related in scope to the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
A True Copy Attest: datltj t2 ~ ': : ~", \U':~ t (J Clerk of Courts , ' I ' [I C ( , STATE OF MAINE . ':I!~::-'/ SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. I '. CRIMINAL ACTION , ,', ~OCKET NO. CR-07-7P:6 .,/ ill /'\ i,: L~A\N -c.,v-~- q; !fOO? STATE OF MAINE
v. ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS
GREGORY M. HASKELL
INTRODUCTION
Pending is Haskell's motion to suppress evidence arising out of his detention on the side of the road during an investigation into an accident involving a driverless and damaged truck found on a beach in Scarborough on January 12,2007. Haskell argues that seizure occurred when he was stopped by Sgt. 0 'Neil, a uniformed officer in a marked police vehicle with his service weapon. Haskell additionally argues that when Police Officer Roberts took his driver's license and did not return it to him, seizure occurred. At either point, Haskell did not feel free to leave. Alternatively, seizure occurred when the officer reached to take the keys from Haskell's hand because Haskell's silence is not acquiescence. The state counters that there was an ongoing accident investigation and neither roadside detention, nor the taking of the license amounted to seizure. The state further argues that even if Haskell were in custody, the search was incident to an arrest or the result of inevitable discovery. Alternatively, the state contends that the officers were performing a community caretaking function with a matter that started off as an accident and they were checking for the safety and welfare of the occupants of the truck. At the hearing, the court heard only from Officer Roberts, the lead officer on the investigation. FACTS At approximately 2:19 am, January 12,2007, Officer Mark Roberts was dispatched to a truck on the beach near Black Point Road. Within a few minutes, the officer responded. The truck was on a sandy beach beyond the Yacht Club. Roberts determined that the truck must have gone down the embankment, over the rocks and onto the beach. Roberts exited his vehicle and went down the stairs near the Yacht Club and over rocks to the beach where the truck was located. He looked outside and inside the truck; no one was around. Roberts, using a flashlight, discovered that the steering wheel was bent towards the windshield, appearing that someone had hit the wheel. Sergeant O'Neil arrived a few minutes later but he did not go down to the beach. O'Neil and Roberts checked out the Yacht Club to see if anyone had gone into the Club. O'Neil then drove down Black Point Road looking for persons who might be involved. l O'Neil notified Roberts that he had located someone walking up the beach. Roberts joined O'Neil and the individual who were standing on the side of the road next to the cruiser, approximately 100 yards from the Yacht Club. Roberts spoke with the individual. At Roberts' request, the person displayed a picture ID identifying him as Gregory Haskell. Roberts held onto to Haskell's license. Roberts did not observe any sign of injury on Haskell's face. Roberts proceeded to ask a number of questions, including how he got there, where he had come from, trying to find out how the truck had ended up on the beach. Haskell told him that he was not driving, a friend was driving and he did not know what the friend's name was. In response to a question whether he had any weapons on him, Haskell reached into his pocket, pulled out his keys, reached out hand and said, "These are my keys." Roberts took the keys believing he had implied consent. Roberts pushed a button on the keys and lights on the truck went on. Roberts could smell alcohol on Haskell. Haskell told him he had been drinking, but not driving. At this point, Roberts was still trying to find out who the driver was. He was investigating an accident with significant damage. The truck had traveled 25 feet over the cliff and Roberts was concerned that someone was injured. Roberts radioed dispatch to identify Haskell and then checked Haskell's license and warrant status. Haskell was not wanted, but his license was suspended. Roberts arrested Haskell for possession of a suspended license. Sgt. O'Neil transported Haskell to the jail.
1 O'Neil was uniformed with his service weapon and traveling in a marked cruiser.
2 DISCUSSION The Law Court has discussed the constitutional implications of a seizure that is a detention or stop:
An encounter between a member of law enforcement and a citizen will implicate the protections of the Fourth Amendment only if the encounter constitutes a seizure of the citizen. A seizure occurs when the citizen's liberty is restrained by a law enforcement official such that the citizen "is not free to walk away."
State v. Gulick, 2000 ME 170, ~ 10, 759 A. 2d 1085 (citations omitted). This type of
"seizure" differs from an "arrest," which also includes the concept that the person is not
"free to walk away," but does so in the context of circumstances consistent with formal
arrest. 1d at ~. 10, n. 4. "A brief restriction 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." ld.
Here, the totality of O'Neil and Roberts' actions following their approach to
Haskell, including asking for his license, following up with questions about where he was
coming from, and having Haskell wait while Roberts ran a check on the status of any
warrants and of Haskell's right to operate a vehicle, constituted a detention, or seizure, for
Fourth Amendment purposes. This court need not determine the precise instant of the
seizure in this matter because the officers' actions were based on an initial articulable
suspicion for the contact with Haskell, as explained below, and the entire course of the
officers' actions were limited in scope and reasonable in relation to the circumstances
that initiated the contact.
A citizen may be detained only when '''specific and articulable facts which, taken
together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. '"
State v. Dulac, 600 A.2d 1121, 1122 (Me. 1992) (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 21,
3 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)). This is the standard by which this court must
examine the circumstances surrounding the officers' detention of Haskell to determine if
that police action was reasonable. See Gulick, 2000 ME at ~12. An officer may make
brief intrusions "based upon reasonable and articulable (1) safety concerns; (2) suspicion
that the defendant has committed a crime; or (3) suspicion that the defendant has
committed a traffic infraction" without violating the Fourth Amendment. Id. at ~ 13
(citations omitted). When O'Neil and Roberts approached Haskell on foot shortly after
2: 19 am, they had a clearly articulated and objectively reasonable concern for the safety
of anyone who may have been in the truck when it went over the cliff and dropped 25
feet to the beach. A police officer has a "legitimate role as a public servant to assist those
in distress and to maintain and foster public safety." Id. at ~ 14.
Roberts' request to see Haskell's license was a "minimal further intrusion," and
the request itself does not need to be supported independently by a reasonable articulable
suspicion if the subsequent actions were "reasonably related in scope to the
circumstances which justified the interference in the first place." Id. at ~~ 15 and 16. This
court concludes that Roberts' actions did not exceed the scope justified under the
circumstances. The officers had a truck on the beach that had gone over a 25-foot cliff
and the driving wheel of the truck was damaged. The officers found Haskell within 200
yards of the truck. It was reasonable for the officers to stop Haskell and inquire how he
got there just after 2:19 am and whether he had been driving the truck. Haskell's response
that he had been drinking but he did not drive the truck and that his friend had been the
driver but he did not know his friend's name, together with the smell of alcohol on
Haskell, provided additional information sufficient to support a request for Haskell's
4 license and to check whether there were any active warrants or whether Haskell's license
was valid. Retrieving Haskell's keys from his outstretched hand to see whether the keys
were from the truck (and the confirmation that the keys operated the truck) further
permitted the officer to confirm or dispel his growing suspicions concerning whether
there might be another injured person out there who had been driving the truck or
whether Haskell had been driving the truck. This detention was reasonably related to the
original purpose of stopping Haskell, that is a safety check of any possible injured driver
or passenger from the truck.
The entry will be: Defendant's motion to suppress is denied.
Date: September 12, 2007 ce A. Wheeler Justice, Superior Court