State of Maine v. McCracken

Maine Superior

State of Maine v. McCracken

DecidedNovember 15, 2010

DocketCUMcr-10-3625

StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. McCracken (State of Maine v. McCracken) 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. McCracken, (Me. Super. Ct. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, SS. CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-10-3625 \-.JJ ItAlAi - -C'A'Y- /-}' l\.f\lV V\ (~ ) ~..' ,. .'. ' ~. ;~, ,

STATE OF MAINE, ) ) v. ) ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS ) TARYN A. McCRACKEN, ) Defendant. )

This matter came before the court for hearing on November 3, 2010 on defendant's

motion to suppress in which she is challenging the stop and probable cause for arrest. Defendant

contends that the State lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop her vehicle for a

registration plate light violation and probable cause to arrest her for operating a motor vehicle

while under the influence of alcohol. The officer's sole basis for the stop was the registration

plate light violation, which the officer never confinned once the stop occurred; therefore, the

defendant argues, the stop was pretext or based on a hunch.

FACTS

The salient facts relevant to this issue are as follows:

At approximately 12:25 a.m. on May 30, 2010, Patrol Officer Seth Page was on patrol on

Elm Street in South Portland when he observed a red Oldsmobile drive past him on Broadway.

At the time of the observation the officer was stopped at a blinking red light at the intersection of

Broadway and Elm. The officer believed that the rear registration plate light on the right side

was out because the right side of the plate was not illuminated; therefore, the officer pulled out

onto Broadway and followed the vehicle to make a traffic stop. When the officer stopped his

vehicle behind the red Oldsmobile he asked a citizen observer riding along with him ifhe knew of the intersection." Id. at 320. As in Pinkham, here there is no evidence that this was a random

stop or that the safety justification was only a pretext. In this case, there was the officer's

observation that the right side of the registration plate was not illuminated as required by law.

The video displayed at the hearing did not shed light on whether the registration plate was

illuminated. This court concludes that a police officer had specific and articulable facts to justify

stopping and warning a driver when he observed what he thought was a civil infraction. In so

ruling, the court rejects defendant's argument that because the officer never followed up to check

and see whether the registration light was out, it must have been a mere hunch and cannot supply

reasonable articulable suspicion.

And, since this was a valid stop, the officer's action of asking for license and

identification was not only reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the

stop in the first place, but the officer now had new probable cause (based, in part, on the glossy

and bloodshot eyes and the underage of the driver) to believe that a new offense was occurring or

had occurred to justify further intrusion into the privacy rights of the occupant of the red

Oldsmobile. See State v. Hill, 606 A. 2d 793, 795 (Me. 1992).

2. Probable Cause to Arrest

The defendant's argument that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest her fails

because "[t]he probable cause standard for requiring a person to take a blood-alcohol test has a

very low threshold." State v. Forsyth, 2002 ME 75, ~ 14, 795 A. 2d 66, 70 (citations omitted)

"For there to be probable cause for OUI, an officer only needs evidence sufficient to support the

reasonable belief 'that the person's senses are affected to the slightest degree, or to any extent, by

alcohol that the person has had to drink.''' !d. (citing State v. Webster, 2000 ME 115, ~ 7, 754 A.

2d 976, 978). Probable cause has been found on as little evidence as an improper u-turn, smell DISCUSSION

1. The Stop

"In order to support a brief investigatory stop of a motor vehicle, such as the stop in this

case, a police officer must have an objectively reasonable, articulable suspicion that either

criminal conduct, a civil violation, or a threat to public safety has occurred, is occurring, or is

about to occur. The officer's suspicion that any of these circumstances exist must be objectively

reasonable in the totality of the circumstances." State v Sylvain, 2003 ME 5, ~ 11 (citations and

quotation marks omitted). "[S]afety reasons alone can be sufficient to support an automobile stop

if they are based upon specific articulable facts." State v. Pinkham, 586 A. 2d 730 (Me. 1991).

However, the reasonable suspicion standard requires more than mere speculation. State v.

Chapman, 495 A. 2d 314 (Me. 1995). "The court must find that the officer actually entertained

the suspicion and that the suspicion was reasonable under the circumstances." State v. Lear,

1998 ME 273, ~ 5,722 A. 2d 1266,1268 (citations omitted). "[T]he term 'reasonable and

articulable suspicion' includes both subjective and objective components. Id

There is a single articulated reason for the stop in this case: The officer stopped the red

vehicle based upon the specific articulable fact that the right side of the rear registration plate

was not illuminated and the light bulb on the right side appeared to be out. Failing to illuminate

the rear registration plate is a traffic infraction. 29-A M.R.S.A. § 1909. 1 Failing to illuminate a

registration plate is also a serious safety concern as evidenced by the law and the fact that it is an

inspection violation. In Pinkham I, 565 A. 2d 318 (Me. 1989), the court concluded that that "the

officer's observation of the defendant's misuse of the marked lanes could furnish 'specific

articulable facts' to justify pulling him over for safety purposes to advise him of his improper use

1 29-A M.R.S.A. § 1909 provides: "A vehicle must have a white light capable of illuminating the rear registration plate so that the characters on the plate are visible for a distance of at least 50 feet." why the officer had stopped the vehicle and then explained that he had stop this vehicle because

the right side bulb appeared to be out.

The officer then approached the driver of the vehicle and requested license, registration

and proof of insurance, which she provided without any problem. However, the officer noticed

the driver was only 20 years old and her eyes were glossy and "pretty bloodshot." The officer

performed a quick pass by her eyes while she was still in the vehicle to see whether there was

any nystagmus in the eyes. The eyes were jumping and did not follow in smooth pursuit. The

officer asked the driver to step out of the vehicle to conduct field so~riety tests because her eyes

were glossy and bloodshot and because of the abbreviated nystagmus test.

The officer observed all six clues during the horizontal gaze nystagmus test and also

tested her vertical nystagmus and concluded she had consumed alcohol. The driver repeatedly

denied having any alcohol. Once out of the vehicle she did advise the officer that she takes a

prescription allergy medication but she could not remember the name of the medication. The

officer continued with the field sobriety tests and observed 4 out of 8 clues during the walk and

turn test. On the one leg stand test, the officer observed one clue when she was unable to keep

her foot up for the entirety of the test. The officer testified that the operator had a very strong

perfume on and he could not detect any alcohol smell in light of the perfume smell. Because she

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