State of Maine v. Moore
This text of State of Maine v. Moore (State of Maine v. Moore) 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.
Opinion
1/ STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. DOCKET NO. CR-03-399 Sy KE AL if (Soe STATE OF MAINE, Vv. DECISION ON MOTION , nanun ans eet O SUPPRESS EARLE. MOORE, DONALD L, GNA Lah bene ees Defendant This matter comes before the State on the defendant’s motion to suppress certain evidence acquired as the result of a vehicle stop/detention in violation of the defendant’s Maine and United States constitutional rights. Finding no violation of those rights, the motion will be denied. Facts In the early morning of August 20, 2003, Officer Shawn Porter of the Augusta Police Department was on patrol. As the officer approached the Bridge Street Tavern a little after closing time, he noticed a blue station wagon pull out of the tavern parking lot and proceed up Bridge Street. The officer continued driving up Bridge Street behind the vehicle and noticed that it was driving a little faster than most vehicles. When the station wagon turned right on State Street, the officer decided to follow and was led into a small neighborhood which would eventually lead back to the starting point on Bridge Street. The officer lost sight of the vehicle he was following but his curiosity was piqued as to why the vehicle appeared to be making a loop. Therefore, he returned to the neighborhood, turned off his lights, and pulled into a dooryard to see if he could find out what was going on. Eventually, the officer saw some lights go on and the same vehicle he had been following before pulled out and returned to Bridge Street. The officer followed. Going across State Street and continuing up Bridge Street, the officer made a visual estimate of the speed of the vehicle in front of him as 45 m.p.h. in what was at that point a 25 m.p.h. speed zone. The officer is a Maine Criminal Justice Academy graduate and trained and certified, both at the Academy and by the Augusta Police Department, in the visual estimate of speed. The officer continued to follow the vehicle up Bridge Street to a point where the street ended in a dead-end. Other than the estimated excessive speed, the officer detected no erratic operation and at no point during the entire episode did the officer turn on either his blue lights or siren. The station wagon pulled into a dooryard at the end of the street and the officer pulled in behind the vehicle, to get answers to his questions concerning the speed he observed and the suspicious stops and route. As the driver and occupants of the station wagon and the officer got out of their respective vehicles, the driver of the suspect car asked the officer with some profanity whether the officer had a problem and why the officer was following him. The driver became upset and yelled at the officer. The driver could not remember who lived at the house where they had turned in and indicated that he thought it was on an entirely different street. Discussion Viewing the facts set forth above, the court concludes that a stop or detention of the defendant occurred at the point where the officer pulled his cruiser in behind the defendant's vehicle and blocked or hindered the vehicle from proceeding. Therefore, the question is whether there was a constitutionally sufficient basis for the officer to have taken that action. The defendant points to the fact that there was no erratic operation of the vehicle, that the officer had received no tips concerning possible criminal activity and there were no objective indicia of such criminal activity taking place. On the other hand, the State points to the officer’s visual estimate of the defendant’s speed, the suspicious route driven by the defendant and the officer’s immediate observations upon leaving his cruiser. In order to be constitutionally justified, a vehicle stop must be based on a showing of articulable suspicion of criminal activity and a showing that the suspicion was objectively reasonable in light of the totality of the circumstances. State v. Lux, 1999 ME 136, {| 8, 740 A.2d 556, 558; citing State v. Lear, 1998 ME 273, 7 5, 722 A.2d 1266, 1267. Among those circumstances, an observation of a vehicle being driven faster than the speed limit has been held to be an articulable fact sufficient for an investigatory stop, whether or not a reasonable officer would normally have stopped the vehicle for such speeding. State v. Bolduc, 1998 ME 255, { 6, 722 A.2d 44, 45. The fact that in this case the officer's measure of the defendant's vehicle. speed was based on a. visual estimate rather than more definitive scientific measurement is immaterial, at least for establishing the officer’ s state of mind. Furthermore, it has been held that vehicles may be stopped for investigation for infractions as minor as a Jane marking violation, under the rubric of “community caretaking” or “safety stops.” State v. Pinkham 565 A.2d 318 (Me. 1989). Given the totality of the circumstances in the present case, the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer was fully justified in making the vehicle stop/interruption to satisfy his reasonable and articulable suspicion triggered by the vehicle’s speed and unusual route. The entry will be: Motion to suppress is DENIED. Dated: January g , 2004 Mekdlus2 STATE OF MAINE VS EARL E MOORE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss. 669 EASTERN AVENUE, APT. #1 AUGUSTA ME 04330 DOCKET RECORD DOB: 09/21 Attorney: Filing Doc /1970 TAYLOR FAWNS OFFICE OF WILLIAM J KELLEHER 7 EAST CRESCENT STREET AUGUSTA ME 04330 APPOINTED 09/25/2003 State's Attorney: EVERT FOWLE ument: INDICTMENT Major Case Type: FELONY (CLASS A,B,C) Filing Date: 09/12/2003 Charge (s) 1 OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 08/20/2003 AUGUSTA 29-A 2411(1) Class Cc PORTER / AUG 2 CRIMINAL MISCHIEF . 08/20/2003 AUGUSTA 17-A 806(1) (B) Class D PORTER / AUG 3 OPERATING AFTER SUSPENSION 29-A 08/20/2003 AUGUSTA 2412-A(1) Class E PORTER / AUG Docket Events: 09/12/2003 09/15/2003 09/23/2003 FILING DOCUMENT - INDICTMENT FILED ON 09/12/2003 TRANSFER - BAIL AND PLEADING REQUESTED ON 09/12/2003 TRANSFER - BAIL AND PLEADING GRANTED ON 09/12/2003 SUMMONS/SERVICE - SUMMONS TO APPEAR FOR ARRAIGN ISSUED FOR 09/12/2003 Charge(s): 1,2,3 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 09/19/2003 @ 9:00 Charge(s): 1,2,3 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT FTA ON 09/19/2003 SUMMONS /SERVICE - SUMMONS TO APPEAR FOR ARRAIGN RET UNDELIVERABLE ON 09/23/2003 WARRANT - ON COMP/INDICTMENT ORDERED ON 09/19/2003 S KIRK STUDSTRUP , JUSTICE BAIL BOND - $20,000.00 SURETY BAIL BOND SET BY COURT ON 09/19/2003 OR 10,000 CASH WARRANT - ON COMP/INDICTMENT ISSUED ON 09/23/2003 Page 1 of 3 Printed on: Docket No AUGSC-CR-2003-00399 01/09/2004 EARL E MOORE AUGSC-CR-2003-00399 DOCKET RECORD CERTIFIED COPY TO WARRANT REPOSITORY 09/26/2003 WARRANT - ON COMP/INDICTMENT EXECUTED ON 09/25/2003 ARRESTED BY AUGUSTA POLICE DEPT. 09/26/2003 WARRANT - ON COMP/INDICTMENT RETURNED ON 09/26/2003 09/29/2003 Charge(s): 1,2,3 HEARING ~- ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 09/26/2003 @ 2:30 09/29/2003 Charge(s): 1,2,3 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 09/26/2003 S KIRK STUDSTRUP , JUSTICE Attorney: TAYLOR FAWNS DA: PAUL RUCHA Reporter: CASE ENOCH Defendant Present in Court READING WAIVED. DEFENDANT INFORMED OF CHARGES. COPY OF INDICTMENT/INFORMATION GIVEN TO DEFENDANT. 21 DAYS TO FILE MOTIONS 09/29/2003 Charge(s): 1,2,3 PLEA - NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 09/26/2003 09/29/2003 Charge(s): 1,2,3 ‘PLEA - NOT- GUILTY. S. Kirk Studstrup Justice, Superior Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Maine v. Moore, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-moore-mesuperct-2004.