State of Maine v. Maier

Maine Superior

State of Maine v. Maier

DecidedMarch 5, 2014

DocketCUMcr-13-06823

StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Maier (State of Maine v. Maier) 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.

Bluebook

State of Maine v. Maier, (Me. Super. Ct. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

£ NT ERED AUG 2 9 2014

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss. CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-13-A2} Jt1w~ curn- 3 .5; . ,/)Jd j >::Au -~

STATE OF MAINE

v. ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

STEVEN MAIER

Introduction

Pending is Steven Maier's motion to suppress evidence arising out of a statement

made by him to a Falmouth Police Officer after the officer determined that he had

probable cause to arrest Mr. Maier for operating a motor vehicle while under the

influence of intoxicants, Class D, 29-A M.R.S.A. §2411(1-A)(A). Maier alleged at the

hearing on the motion to suppress first that the state lacked probable cause to arrest and

then failure to administer his Miranda warnings before submitting him to custodial

interrogation.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the State presented one witness, Officer

Robert D. Ryder of the Falmouth Police Department. After considering all of the

evidence, this court concludes for the reasons set forth below that the motion to suppress

is denied. The Court finds, without any further discussion, that the officer had probable

cause to arrest Maier based on his erratic operation of his motor vehicle, r.~' watery eyes -::- and odor of intoxicating beverage, his admission that he had a couple of ~jnks witp. some 22 r--- . -._

friends, and his unsatisfactory performance on three field sobriety tests.J;ee Sta~~ ~:· ·

Webster, 2000 ME 115, ~ 7, 754 A.2d 976.

1 Facts

Before administering the field sobriety tests, the officer asked Maier to exit his

vehicle and to come to the front of the vehicle to perform field sobriety tests where the

road was flat. The officer asked Maier how much he had to drink and Maier responded,

"three drinks." The officer then administered the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, the

walk and turn test and the one leg stand test. After administering the three field sobriety

tests, Officer Ryder formed an opinion that Maier was impaired. In forming that opinion,

he considered Maier's operation of his motor vehicle, his unsuccessful completion of the

field sobriety tests and the other factors leading up to the administration of the field

sobriety test. Because he considered that Maier may be fifty pounds overweight and he

recalled that some consideration was to be given to people overweight by this amount,

the officer asked Maier how he would rank himself on a 1-1 0 scale of impairment with 10

being falling down drunk. When Maier answered, "8", the officer, who was surprised by

the answer, asked him once again and got the same answer. The officer offered Maier a

preliminary breath test, again because of his weight, and then placed Maier in handcuffs

and took him to the Cumberland County Jail. The officer did not at any time advise

Maier of his Miranda rights. Maier seeks to suppress his statement that he ranked

himself an "8" on an impairment scale with 10 being falling down drunk.

Discussion

Miranda and Voluntariness o{Statements Before Arrest

The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Maier's

statement was voluntary. See State v. Sawyer, 2001 ME 88, ~ 8, 772 A. 2d 1173. The

court must consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether a confession

2 is voluntary. Id. at~ 7. "In order to fmd a statement voluntary, it must first be

established that it is the result of defendant's exercise of his own free will and rational

intellect." ld. at~ 8 (citation omitted). Factors to consider in doing this analysis include

the following: details of the interrogation; duration of the interrogation; location of the

interrogation; whether interrogation was custodial; recitation of the Miranda warnings;

the number of officers involved; the persistence of the officers; police trickery; any

threats, promises or inducements made; and the defendant's age, physical and mental

health, emotional stability and conduct. ld. at ~ 9.

Scrutinizing all of the circumstances surrounding the police questioning before

Maier was arrested, there is no evidence of any police trickery, threats, promises or

inducements. Maier appeared to be alert and rational, and he could respond to questions

with appropriate answers. There was no indication of any impairment ofMaier's

physical or mental condition, except as he performed on the field sobriety tests. The

officer was speaking with Maier in a conversational manner about how much he had to

drink, with the intent of giving Maier some additional consideration because of his

weight. The officer's question and Maier's answer were voluntary under all of the

circumstances.

Maier contends that the failure to advise him of his rights under

Miranda requires that the court suppress any statements he made after the determination

to arrest Maier was made by the officer. It is well-settled law that the police must give a

Miranda warning to a person subject to custodial interrogation in order for the statements

made in the course of the interrogation to be admissible against that person. "A suspect

who is not formally arrested is subjected to a custodial interrogation if the suspect's

3 freedom of movement has been restrained 'to the degree associated with a formal

arrest."' State v. Lockhart, 2003 ME 108, ~ 17, 830 A. 2d 433,441, quoting State v.

Higgins, 2002 ME 77, ~ 12 796 A. 2d 50, 54.

When Maier made the statement, he was not yet under arrest although the officer

had already decided to arrest him, nor was he subjected to custodial interrogation. He

was not handcuffed, nor left in the presence of the second officer. He was not under

arrest until Officer Ryder placed the handcuffs on Maier and took him to the County Jail.

Since Maier was not subject to custodial interrogation before his arrest, the statement

concerning his being an "8" is not suppressed.

Once Maier was arrested he was in custody and Miranda warnings were required

before being questioned. However, there is no evidence of any custodial interrogation

after Maier's arrest. The question about how much he had to drink was asked before

Ryder was handcuffed and placed under arrest.

Maier argues that he was in custody at the time the questioned was asked because

Officer Ryder admitted that he would have arrested him even if his answer had been a

"0" because of his unsuccessful performance on the field sobriety tests. Maier argues

Ryder went to far in his questioning having already decided to arrest him.

The State counters that under State v. Lewry, 550 A. 2d 64 (Me. 1988), this was

justified noncustodial questioning because of his performance on the field sobriety tests.

"An ordinary traffic stop to ask a few questions and to conduct field sobriety tests on a

driver suspected of operating under the influence does not amount to custodial

interrogation so as to require a warning of the driver's rights pursuant to Miranda v.

Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). See Pennsylvania v.

4 Bruder, 488 U.S. 9, 109 S.Ct. 205, 102 L.Ed.2d 172 (1988) (per curiam)." The officer

asked administrative questions at the side of the road before the defendant's arrest. An

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI