State of Maine v. Ouellette

Maine Superior

State of Maine v. Ouellette

DecidedDecember 29, 2006

DocketKENcr-06-528

StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Ouellette (State of Maine v. Ouellette) 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. Ouellette, (Me. Super. Ct. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE ,-rnr , I , --, . ,i ?,I -,, SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss :, . ., .. . , , CRIMINAL ACTION ' DOCKET NO. CK-06-528

STATE OF MAINE

v. ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

DANIEL OUELLETTE,

Defendant

The defendant seeks to suppress statements made by the defendant and items

seized during searches of the defendant's vehicle. The defendant argues that h s

statements were not voluntary and there was no justification for the warrantless

searches. For the following reasons, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

FACTS

On 5/8/06, at approximately 1:00 - 1:30 a.m., the defendant appeared at the

Clinton home of Waterville Deputy Police Chief Joseph Massey. Deputy Chief Massey

has no authority to act as a law enforcement officer in Clinton.

The defendant had blood on his face and appeared to Deputy Chief Massey to be

under the influence of intoxicants. The defendant stated that he was driving and was

involved in an accident down the road. He also said he needed help and was "messed

up" on alcohol and drugs. The defendant recognized and said hello to Deputy Chief

Massey's son, Dana, who is also a police officer. The defendant responded

appropriately to Deputy Chief Massey's questions.

Kennebec County Deputy Sheriff Peter Tibbetts responded to the Massey

residence and spoke to the defendant, who walked down the outside stairs to meet the

Deputy at his request. The defendant recited what he had done that evening. Deputy

Tibbetts smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from the defendant and observed that h s balance was unsteady. At Deputy Tibbetts's request, the defendant walked to the

cruiser without assistance. The defendant answered appropriately questions from

Deputy Tibbetts and members of the rescue squad.

Deputy Tibbetts asked for the defendant's license, registration, and insurance

papers. The defendant stated his license was in the center console or in the ashtray of

his vehcle. Deputy Tibbetts walked to the vehicle, entered it, and found the

defendant's license between the seats in the console area. The Deputy had previously

noticed a plastic planner for pills on the floorboard of the vehicle when he first arrived

on the scene and approached the vehicle to determine whether anyone was inside'.

After the rescue members examined the defendant, the Deputy asked the

defendant to perform field sobriety tests. The defendant stated he was not driving and

did not have to perform the tests. He was arrested and taken to the Kennebec County

Sheriff's Office. The defendant remained awake during the one-half hour ride to the

sheriff's office, where they arrived at approximately 3:00 a.m. The defendant refused to

take an intoxilyzer test and refused to sign the implied consent form at approximately

3:30 a.m. See State's Ex. 1. The Deputy asked no questions after the arrest of the defendant.

At approximately 4:30 a.m., then Kennebec County Deputy Sheriff Christopher

Chase arrived at the jail after investigating a burglary at the Chesley residence, in which

the defendant was implicated. Deputy Chase awakened the defendant, who was

sleeping in the holding cell. The defendant was lethargc and slow and deliberate but

his speech was not slurred. Deputy Chase administered the Miranda warnings; the

defendant acknowledged that he understood each of the warnings after it was read. The defendant did not object to spealung to the Deputy. The defendant told the Deputy

that Tony Nichols had entered the Chesley residence and had taken the medicine found

in the defendant's vehicle. The defendant stated that he would never take a n y h n g

from Mr. Chesley. Because the defendant was angry with Tony for what he had done,

the defendant abandoned Tony on the side of the road before the accident. Tony later

confirmed in a discussion with Deputy Chase that the defendant left Tony on the side of

the road.

Deputy Chase interviewed the defendant for 20 or 25 minutes. The defendant

responded appropriately to the Deputy's questions and did not fall asleep. The

defendant agreed to sign a consent to search lus vehicle. Deputy Chase also signed the

form. The signed form has been misplaced and is not in the case file, in spite of efforts

by Deputy Chase to find the form. State's Ex. 2.

Dr. Brian Rines met with the defendant to discuss the events of May 7 and 8. Dr.

Rines's conclusions were based on information provided by the defendant and

information in the police reports. Dr. Rines concluded that the defendant's blood

alcohol content would have been approximately .295% at the time of h s interaction

with the officers. At that level, the defendant would have been approaching

unconsciousness and would have been stumbling drunk. The defendant would have

had exhibited slurred speech, would have spoken in incomplete sentences, and would

have had difficulty communicating coherently.

The court discounts Dr. Rines's conclusions because they are contradicted by the

observations of three police officers. Further, Dr. Rines's conclusions were based, in

part, on information he incorrectly believed was in the officers' reports. For example,

1 The defendant agreed at the hearing that the pill container was in plain view when seen by Deputy Tibbetts and withdrew this issue from those to be considered in his motion to Dr. Rines believed incorrectly that the officers reported that the defendant passed out at

the Massey residence.

CONCLUSIONS

Statements

Proof that a defendant was intoxicated, without more, does not render h s

statements inadmissible. State v. Warner, 237 A.2d 150,160 (Me. 1967). This record

does not show coercive police conduct and does not suggest that the defendant's

statements were not "the result of the defendant's exercise of his own free will and

rational intellect." State v. Sawver, 2001 ME 88, ql 8, 772 A.2d 1173, 1175; State v.

Caouette, 446 A.2d 1120,1123-24 (Me. 1982). The State has proved beyond a reasonable

doubt that the defendant's statements were voluntary. See Sawyer, ql 9, 772 A.2d at

1176.

Search

Based on this record, Deputy Tibbetts was not justified in searching the vehicle

and seizing the license. See State v. Leonard, 2002 ME 125, q[ 12, 802 A.2d 991, 993-94;

State v. Michael M., 2001 ME 92, ql6, 772 A.2d 1179, 1181-82. The consent obtained by

Deputy Chase for a later search of the vehcle was valid.

The entry is

The Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED with regard to the Defendant's statements and is GRANTED with regard to the Defendant's license.

Date: December 29,2006

~ustiG,Superior Court

suppress. STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT vs KENNEBEC , ss . DANIEL P OUELLETTE Docket No AUGSC-CR-2006-00528 42 HILLCREST DRIVE CLINTON ME 04927 DOCKET RECORD

DOB: 11/23/1976 Attorney: NATHANIEL LEVY State's Attorney: EVERT FOWLE LAW OFFICE OF NATHANIEL SETH LEVY PO BOX 31 BRUNSWICK ME 04011 APPOINTED 05/08/2006

Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: FELONY (CLASS A,B,C) Filing Date: 05/08/2006

Charge ( s

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