State of Maine v. Ouellette
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
1 BURGLARY 05/08/2006 CLINTON Seq 8484 17-A 401 (1)(B)(4) Class B TIBBETTS / KEN 2 THEFT BY UNAUTHORIZED TAKING OR TRANSFER 05/08/2006 CLINTON Seq 8423 17-A 353 (1)(A) Class E TIBBETTS / KEN 3 OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE-NO TEST, 2 05/08/2006 CLINTON PRIOR Seq 11171 29-A 2411 (1-A)(C)(3) Class C Charged with INDICTMENT on Supplem
4 OPERATE VEHICLE WITHOUT LICENSE- 05/08/2006 CLINTON COND/RESTRIC Seq 9868 29-A 1251 (1)(B) Class E Charged with INDICTMENT on Supplem
Docket Events: 05/08/2006 FILING DOCUMENT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 05/08/2006
05/08/2006 Charge (s): 1,2 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 05/08/2006 O 1:00 in Room No. 1
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 05/10/2006 Charge (s): 1,2 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 05/08/2006
Defendant Present in Court
READING WAIVED. DEFENDANT INFORMED OF CHARGES. COPY OF INDICTMENT/INFORMATION GIVEN TO DEFENDANT. 21 DAYS TO FILE MOTIONS 05/10/2006 Charge (s): 1 PLEA - NO ANSWER ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 05/08/2006
05/10/2006 Charge (s): 2 Page 1 of 4 Printed on: 12/29/2006
DANIEL P OUELLETTE
AUGSC-CR-2006-00528
DOCKET RECORD
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State of Maine v. Ouellette (State of Maine v. Ouellette) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.