State of Maine v. Stuart

CourtSuperior Court of Maine
DecidedNovember 29, 2007
DocketCUMcr-07-912
StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Stuart (State of Maine v. Stuart) 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. Stuart, (Me. Super. Ct. 2007).

Opinion

· ...! , '

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION CUMBERLAND, ss. Docket No. CR-p7-912 / w5f> --C\..\~\\- \ (d9 f 0 D' ~)

STATE OF MAINE,

v. DECISION

FREDERICK L. STUART JR., 'JONAlD L. GARBR.fCf-\T ! AW L1BR'" Defendant. JAN 1 5 2008 FINDINGS

L On February 13, 2007 at 7:30 p.m., Officer Robert Ryder received a dispatch that a

concerned citizen was following a possible drunk. driver on Stroudwater Street in

Portland.

2. The concerned citizen, who identified himself as William Briggs, reported to

dispatch that the possible OUI was swerving over the centerline.

3. Mr. Briggs reported that the vehicle he was following was a pickup and he

reported the license plate number.

4. Mr. Briggs reported the suspect as turning on to Forest Street and then on to

Rochester Street.

5. Mr. Briggs reported that he himself was operating a small Volkswagen type car.

6. Dispatch forwarded Mr. Briggs' reports to Officer Ryder as they were received

and Officer Ryder adjusted his route accordingly.

7. Officer Ryder turned onto Rochester Street. He saw a car fitting the description

of Mr. Briggs' car slowing down by a stopped pickup that fit the description

forwarded to Officer Ryder shortly before.

8. The suspect pickup still had its brake lights on and they flashed off as Officer

Ryder approached. 9. The suspect pickup was parked in a parking area but on the wrong side of the

street facing in the opposite direction of the travel lane.

10. Officer Ryder activated his blue lights.

DISCUSSION

Mr. Stuart argues that Officer Ryder did not have reasonable, articulable

suspicion to stop his truck. Mr. Stuart cites State v. LaFond, 2002:ME 124, 802 A.2d 425;

Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990); and Florida v. ].L, 529 U.s. 266 (2000). Mr. Stuart

argues that stopping the opposite way in a parking space, which was the only evidence

personally observed by Officer Ryder, did not sufficiently corroborate the tip from Mr.

Briggs.

All of the cases cited by Mr. Stuart are inapplicable. They all deal with

anonymous tips. In this case the tip was not anonymous. The concerned citizen gave

his name as William Briggs. He reported the type of vehicle Mr. Stuart was driving and

the plate number. Mr. Briggs described his own car. We know how Mr. Briggs gained

his information concerning erratic operation because he reported that he was following

Mr. Stuart. Mr. Briggs reported the route Mr. Stuart was taking and that was

corroborated. Mr. Stuart was taking his foot off the brake as Officer Ryder observed

Mr. Briggs slowing down by Mr. Stuart's truck. By giving his name, Mr. Briggs

indicated his willingness to take responsibility for the information he was providing to

the police. Mr. Briggs' information alone would be sufficiently reliable to justify a stop.

Officer Ryder's observation that Mr. Stuart had parked opposite to the flow of traffic

adds to the indicia of impairment.

Mr. Stuart next argues that Mr. Briggs' reports to the dispatch are hearsay. He

further argues that the rules of evidence apply to motions to suppress.

2 The second point may well be true. The first point does not fare so well and not

only because all federal and state courts have for decades authorized the use of second­

hand reports in determining articulable suspicion and probable cause.

Second-hand information is not hearsay unless it is being offered to prove the

truth of the matter asserted. In Fourth Amendment cases the issue is not whether the

second-hand information is true. The issue is whether it was reasonable for the officer

to rely on the facts he relied on. Truth will come later.

For the above-stated reasons, the clerk will make the following entry on the

docket by reference:

Defendant Frederick Stuart Jr.'s motion to suppress is denied in all respects.

DATED: November Lq ,2007

William S. Brodrick Active Retired Justice, Superior Court

3 STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT vs CUMBERLAND, ss. FREDERICK L STUART, JR Docket No PORSC-CR-2007-00912 76 LAND OF NOD ROAD WINDHAM ME 04062 DOCKET RECORD

DOB: 06/26/1948 Attorney: MICHAEL WHIPPLE State's Attorney: STEPHANIE ANDERSON THOMAS F HALLETT LAW OFFICES PA 36 UNION WHARF PO BOX 7508 PORTLAND ME 04112 RETAINED 02/22/2007

Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: MISDEMEANOR (CLASS D,E) Filing Date: 03/20/2007

Charge(s)

1 OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 02/13/2007 WESTBROOK Seq 9878 29-A 2411(1-A) (A) Class D RYDER / WES

Docket Events:

04/10/2007 Charge(s): 1 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURy TRIAL EDI ON 04/10/2007 @ 18:01

TRANSFERRED CASE: SENDING COURT CASEID PORDCCR200702319 FILING DOCUMENT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 03/20/2007 JAMES TURCOTTE, ASSISTANT CLERK Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 04/09/2007 @ 8:30 in Room No. 1

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 847 04/10/2007 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT WAIVED ON 04/09/2007

409 Party(s) : FREDERICK L STUART JR ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 02/22/2007

Attorney: MICHAEL WHIPPLE Charge(s): 1 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL REQUESTED ON 02/22/2007 JAMES TURCOTTE, ASSISTANT CLERK Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION FOR DISCOVERY FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 02/22/2007 JAMES TURCOTTE, ASSISTANT CLERK Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 02/22/2007 JAMES TURCOTTE, ASSISTANT CLERK Charge(s): 1 PLEA - NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY COUNSEL ON 04/09/2007

Page 1 of 3 Printed on: 11/30/Z007 FREDERICK L STUART, JR PORSC-CR-2007-00912 DOCKET RECORD 409 Charge ( s): 1 TRIAL - BENCH SCHEDULED FOR 06/12/2007 @ 10:30 in Room No. 1

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 409 Charge(s): 1 TRIAL - BENCH NOT HELD ON 04/09/2007

Charge(s): 1 FINDING - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL TRANSFERRED ON 04/10/2007 DEBRA SOUBBLE, ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK PORSC 04/13/2007 Charge(s): 1 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL RECVD BY COURT ON 04/10/2007 BETHANY RODERIGUE, ASSISTANT CLERK-E DOCKET ENTRIES RECEIVED FROM 9TH DISTRICT COURT (07-2319) NO APPEARANCE BOND FILED 06/13/2007 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 07/05/2007 @ 11:00 DARCEY EMERY, ASSISTANT CLERK NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 06/29/2007 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 06/27/2007

MRP 06/29/2007 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 06/29/2007 THOMAS E DELAHANTY II, JUSTICE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL RESCHEDULE FOR FIRST AVAILABLE DATE AFTER 30 DAYS AKL 06/29/2007 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS CONTINUED ON 06/29/2007 THOMAS E DELAHANTY II, JUSTICE AKL 07/24/2007 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 08/10/2007 @ 10:00 in Room No. 7 WILLIAM BRODRICK, JUSTICE NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL SR 07/24/2007 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ON 07/24/2007

07/24/2007 HEARING - MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SCHEDULED FOR oa/10/2007 @ 10:00 in Room No. 7 WILLIAM BRODRICK, JUSTICE NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL SR 07/24/2007 HEARING - MOTION FOR DISCOVERY NOTICE SENT ON 07/24/2007

oa/13/2007 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR oa/16/2007 @ 11:00 in Room No. 7 WILLIAM BRODRICK, JUSTICE NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL AKL oa/13/2007 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ON 08/13/2007

AKL oa/22/2007 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 10/04/2007 @ 11:00 in Room No.

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

Related

Alabama v. White
496 U.S. 325 (Supreme Court, 1990)
State v. Lafond
2002 ME 124 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Maine v. Stuart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-stuart-mesuperct-2007.