State of Maine v. Jacobs

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: June 16, 2014
• Docket: CUMcr-14-1029
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss ---. :. . ·:-: Docket No.: CUMCD-CR-14-1029 '. ·---~ s s -. ~ ·.:."! \ ::- l : ·._ WS 17 -[/L1h -Db-lb-l L( 1 r) STATE OF MAINE, L1l '.{:') _,

Plaintiff, DECISION v.

WILL JACOBS,

Defendant

FINDINGS

The parties have stipulated to the following facts:

"On the night of December 20, 2013, Officer Todd Smolinsky of the Bridgton Police

Department was on patrol on Knights Hill Road. At 10:02 PM he passed a Ford F-150 truck as it

was waiting to pull onto Knights Hill Rd. He recognized the truck as one belonging to Will

Jacobs, who he knew to be suspended. After he passed, the truck pulled out onto the road behind

Office Smolinsky, who then pulled to the side of the road allowing the truck to pass him. He then

pulled back onto the road and began to follow the truck. He ran the registration and confirmed

that the truck belonged to Mr. Jacobs and that Mr. Jacobs was suspended. At that point he

stopped the truck, walked up to it and found that Mr. Jacobs was operating the vehicle.

Prior to stopping the truck, Officer Smolinsky could not see who was operating the

truck and so he could not tell if the operator was male or female. In addition to the stop

DONALD L. GAURECHT LAW LISitA!tY

JUL 17 2014 happening after dark, the truck windows were also tinted. He did not observe any traffic

violations or erratic or unsafe operation of the vehicle. Knights Hill Road is a rural road and

there· was no other traffic during this incident."

DISCUSSION

Mr. Jacobs rests his motion to suppress exclusively on his reading of State v. Tozier,

2006 ME 105, 905 A.2d 836. The facts in Tozier are indeed similar to the facts in this case. The

important difference, Mr. Jacobs argues, is that the officer in Tozier observed that the driver was

a male prior to the stop while Officer Smolinsky, in this case, did not observe the driver's gender

prior to the stop.

Mr. Jacobs has misread Tozier. The holding in Tozier is " .. .it is reasonable for an

officer to suspect that the owner is driving the vehicle, absent other circumstances that

demonstrate the owner is not driving." Id. at~ 10. Thus the fact that Officer Smolinsky did not

observe whether a male was driving Mr. Jacobs' vehicle does not distinguish Tozier. What

would have distinguished Tozier is if Officer Smolinsky had observed that a female was driving

Mr. Jacobs' truck prior to the stop.

Officer Smolinsky did not have to know Mr. Jacobs was driving his own truck in order

to effect a stop. Officer Smolinsky did not have to have probable cause that Mr. Jacobs was

driving his own truck. Officer Smolinsky had only to reasonably suspect that Mr. Jacobs was

driving his own truck. In the absence of any evidence that someone other than Mr. Jacobs was driving his truck, Officer Smolinsky had reasonable suspicion to make the stop for a brief

investigation to determine whether Mr. Jacobs was, in fact, driving his own truck.

For the above stated reasons, the clerk will, by reference, make the following entry on

the docket.

Defendant Will Jacobs' motion to suppress is denied in all respects.

Date: L It J. o I 't William Brodrick Justice, Superior Court, Active Retired