State of Maine v. Matthew Rousseau

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: July 11, 2016
• Docket: CUMcr-16-1102
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL COURT CUMBERLAND, SS. DOCKET NO. CR-16-1102

STATE OF MAINE i!li .... .,...., 2Jl6 LJUL lb ) ) V. ) ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S ) MOTION TO SUPPRESS ) ) MATTHEW ROUSSEAU ) ) )

This matter came before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Suppress,

specifically, whether Officer Armstrong had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to make

the investigatory stop, which lead to a battery of field-sobriety tests and ultimately to the

charges contained in the Complaint. For the following reasons, the Defendant's Motion

to Suppress is denied.

Under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), "an officer may, consistent with the

Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable,

articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot." Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119,

123 (2000) (citing Terry, 392 U.S. at 30). The officer must have at the time of the stop

(1) an "articulable· suspicion" of criminal activity; and (2) such suspicion is "objectively

reasonable in the totality of the circumstances." State v. Brown, 1997 ME 90, PS, 094

A.2d 453, 455. Therefore, an analysis of the propriety of an investigatory detention short of formal arrest necessarily involves both a subjective component (i.e., actual articulable

suspicion) and an objective component (i.e., reasonable suspicion). See id.

Officer Michael Armstrong of the South Portland Police Department testified at

the suppression hearing. Officer Armstrong stated that he observed a vehicle traveling in

the opposite direction of travel at approximately 1:25 a.m. with one headlight out

crossing Veteran's Memorial Bridge. Officer Armstrong turned his cruiser around to

follow that vehicle. The vehicle operated by Defendant came between Armstrong and the

vehicle with the malfunctioning headlight. Officer Armstrong observed and the cruiser­

cam video admitted as State's Exhibit 1 confirms, Defendant's vehicle was weaving,

touching the fog line more than once. As Officer Armstrong attempted to pass Defendant

to his left, Defendant's vehicle drifted left over the centerline toward Officer Armstrong's

cruiser, causing Armstrong to swerve in a successful attempt to avoid contact. As Officer

Armstrong slowed and pulled behind Defendant, Defendant moved from the exit lane

over a solid line into the travel lane. Officer Armstrong ultimately made an investigatory

stop based on these observations.

Officer Armstrong's testimony and the video footage contained in State's Exhibit

1, establishes clearly that the stop was grounded on a articulable suspicion that was

objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Defendant's weaving and then nearly

making contact with Officer ,:\IDlstrong as Defendant's vehicle weaved in the opposite

direction over the centerline, amply supports Officer Armstrong's subjective articulable

suspicion and that suspicion was objectively reasonable.

Defendant's motion to suppress evidence is denied. The Clerk is directed to enter this Order on the unified criminal docket by

reference pursuant to Maine Rule of Unified Criminal Procedure 53(a).

Date: July 11, 2016

Justice, Superior Court