State of Maine v. Schenk
This text of State of Maine v. Schenk (State of Maine v. Schenk) 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
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT PENOBSCOT, ss. r-""":F:":''':""L=E''':"O-&-E-N....· T--- CRIMINAL ACTION EREO DOCKET NO. CR-08-989 SUP): 0 If) 0 (' (') " RT , r' V) tc, I' .~, .-.' ~ f .~,/.' I.
STATE OF MAINE, JUN 08 2009 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S v. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PENOBSCOT COUNTY CAROLYN SCHENK,
Defendant.
This matter is before the court on a motion to suppress filed by the defendant,
Carolyn Schenk., on October 16, 2008. On June 3, 2009, the court held a hearing at
which the State was represented by Assistant District Attorney Greg Campbell and the
defendant was represented by Attorney Richard Hartley.
Testifying at the hearing were Officer Taylor Bagley of the Bangor Police
Department and Christopher Steele, another motorist who observed the defendant's
driving. Admitted into evidence was a video recorded by equipment mounted in Officer
Bagley's marked vehicle, which shows the stop as well as some of the events leading up
to the stop. (State's Ex. 1.) The court makes the following findings of fact based upon
the testimony received and careful review of the video.
Near midnight on August 28, 2008, Officer Bagley was following a pickup truck
driven by Christopher Steele. The vehicles were traveling westbound on State Street in
Bangor. When approaching the intersection with Harlow and Exchange Streets, Officer
Bagley observed a silver Volvo, which was driven by the defendant, move from the
intersection's left-turn lane to the straight lane by reversing. The officer testified that this
caused the pickup truck to slow down; however, Mr. Steele did not recall this incident. From there all three vehicles continued traveling westbound on State Street with the
defendant in front, Mr. Steele behind her, and Officer Bagley following Mr. Steele.
Officer Bagley testified that he observed the defendant weave once within her lane on
State Street before the vehicles reached Eastern Maine Medical Center, although he
indicated that he had trouble observing the defendant's operation because of Mr. Steele's
pickup truck.
The course of events from this point forward is depicted in the video recorded
from Officer Bagley's cruiser. The video shows the defendant pull into the left turn lane
at an intersection directly in front of the emergency room entrance of Eastern Maine
Medical Center. The defendant performed a V-turn in order to travel eastbound on State
Street. Officer Bagley also conducted a V-turn, following the defendant. The defendant
successfully navigated the V-turn and then traveled through one intersection. At this time
the defendant swerved significantly to the left causing her driver's-side tires to cross the
centerline. At the time the defendant crossed the centerline, a car was approaching in the
opposite direction. The video shows that Officer Bagley turned on his lights at the very
moment the defendant crossed the centerline. The defendant pulled over in response to
the officer's lights.
For a traffic stop to be permissible under the Fourth Amendment, a law
enforcement officer must have an articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot,
which is objectively reasonable based upon the totality of the circumstances. State v.
LaFond, 2002 ME 124, ~ 6, 802 A.2d 425, 427-28. The court has been able to carefully
review the video in this case, which depicts the defendant swerving to the left and
crossing the centerline towards oncoming traffic. The defendant's operation prior to
2 crossing the centerline caught Officer Bagley's attention, prompting him to follow her
after the U-turn. Officer Bagley then saw the defendant swerve to the left towards
oncoming traffic and cross the centerline and, at this point, he reasonably suspected that
the defendant was operating under the influence. Therefore, the defendant's motion to
suppress in denied.
The entry is:
The defendant's motion to suppress, filed October 16, 2008, is DENIED.
Date: June L, 2009 William R. Anderson 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. Schenk, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-schenk-mesuperct-2009.