State of Maine v. Swenson

Maine Superior

State of Maine v. Swenson

DecidedApril 19, 2011

DocketCUMcr-10-7118

StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Swenson (State of Maine v. Swenson) 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. Swenson, (Me. Super. Ct. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

I " .-- _

STATE OF MAINE "I J, ,_, ~.- ,''' , i 'i i, , SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, SS. . j",: i./ I .; ;' CRIMINAL ACTION -."-, ,j \ DOCKET NO. CR-10-7) 18, 7f r/ :,1'GQ 1 'A vJ "--ll (,1'\- L-( /) i ";)-0/ I .... L! II ! j g :~) l: 21j --" • I / /

STATE OF MAINE, ) ) v. ) ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS ) PARKER SWENSON, ) Defendant. )

This matter came before the court for hearing on April 12, 2011 on defendant's motion to

suppress in which he is challenging the stop. Defendant contends that the State lacked

reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop his vehicle based on his operation of a motor vehicle.

The officer's basis for the stop was erratic operation. The State and the defendant disagree about

what the video (State's Ex. 1) discloses about the defendant's operation of his motor vehicle.

The State contends that the officer stopped the defendant's vehicle because of erratic

operation. The State points to the totality of the circumstances, including that it was 3 a.m., the

delay in turning off the high beam, keeping the left hand turn signal on without turning left,

"kissing" the centerline on at least three occasions, operating the vehicle below the posted speed,

approaching the intersection from the left turn only land and shooting over to the right lane just

before entering intersection, breaking for no apparent reason and "kissing" the traffic island.

Defendant counters that he operated his vehicle absolutely appropriately. He traveled along the

centerline because there were some road issues on the right hand side of the road, but he never

touched or crossed the centerline. Following the centerline took him directly into the left turn

lane and he shifted into the right land to travel straight ahead. He only had two seconds to shift

from one lane to the other and he was in the proper land when he entered the intersection. He hit

the brakes of the vehicle as he entered the school zone but he never crossed the centerline. FACTS

The salient facts relevant to this issue and as found by the Court are as follows:

At approximately 3:00 a.m. on October 14,2010, Patrol Officer Brian Martin was on

patrol and had parked his marked police vehicle in a private driveway as he watched the traffic.

Officer Martin decided to return to the station, turned on the headlights of his vehicle and had

started to pull out towards Main Street when he observed a vehicle heading north bound with its

high beams on. When he observed this vehicle, Officer Martin stopped his police vehicle. The

approaching vehicle turned off its high beams just prior to passing the police vehicle. Officer

Martin turned around and followed the vehicle because it had failed to dim its bright lights. The

vehicle turned on its left turn signal and the turn signal stayed on past Turkey Lane and one other

driveway. Even though there were no other left turns, the vehicle traveled approximately 200

yards before it turned off its left signal. Officer Martin found the failure to turn off the left turn

signal odd. The vehicle was also traveling approximately 5 miles below the posted speed. The

officer's vehicle was approximately 100 yards behind the vehicle as it passed the slow cone.

Officer Martin turned on the vehicle's camera at this point because it appeared that the vehicle

touched or "kissed" the centerline at the slow cone. Officer Martin observed the vehicle kissing

the center line two more times and concluded the vehicle was "clearly drifting within its own

land." As the vehicle approached the intersection of Blanchard and Tuttle Road, the vehicle

moved into the left turn only lane for Blanchard Road and then just before entering the

intersection veered into the right hand turn and straight ahead lane. Large white arrows marked

the lanes for left turns only and for right turn and straight ahead. After going through the

intersection, the vehicle was still traveling below the posted speed and braked several times by

the Shell Gas Station. As the vehicle passed a small painted traffic island, the vehicle "kissed" that. area. It was at this point that Officer Martin decided to stop the vehicle for erratic operation

and put on the police vehicle's blue lights.

DISCUSSION

The Stop

"In order to support a brief investigatory stop of a motor vehicle, such as the stop in this

case, a police officer must have an objectively reasonable, articulable suspicion that either

criminal conduct, a civil violation, or a threat to public safety has occurred, is occurring, or is

about to occur. The officer's suspicion that any of these circumstances exist must be objectively

reasonable in the totality of the circumstances." State v Sylvain, 2003 ME 5, ~ 11 (citations and

quotation marks omitted). "[S]afety reasons alone can be sufficient to support an automobile stop

if they are based upon specific articulable facts." State v. Pinkham, 586 A. 2d 730 (Me. 1991).

However, the reasonable suspicion standard requires more than mere speculation. State v.

Chapman, 495 A. 2d 314 (Me. 1995). "The court must find that the officer actually entertained

the suspicion and that the suspicion was reasonable under the circumstances." State v. Lear,

1998 ME 273, ~ 5, 722 A. 2d 1266, 1268 (citations omitted). "[T]he term 'reasonable and

articulable suspicion' includes both subjective and objective components. Id

The officer stopped the vehicle based on the totality of the circumstances for erratic

operation. The officer articulated several reasons for the stop in this case, which when

considered in their totality furnished specific articulable facts to justify pulling the vehicle over.

In Pinkham I, 565 A. 2d 318 (Me. 1989), the court concluded that that "the officer's observation

of the defendant's misuse of the marked lanes could furnish 'specific articulable facts' to justify

pulling him over for safety purposes to advise him of his improper use of the intersection." Id. at

320. As in Pinkham, here there is no evidence that this was a random stop or that the reasons for

'" the stop were only pretextural. In this case, there were the officer's observations, confirmed in

part by the video, that the vehicle failed to dim its high beams, failed to turn off its left turn

signal, traveled below the posted speed, kissed the centerline three times, approached the

intersection from the left turn only lane veering into the proper land at the last minute, braked

several times with no apparent reason and kissed the traffic island. This court concludes that the

police officer had specific and articulable facts to justify stopping the vehicle for erratic

operation. In so ruling, the court rejects defendant's argument that defendant's actions were

perfectly appropriate given the condition of the road. The officer testified that although the road

was not in great condition it was better back then, and since the October stop, the road has been

beaten up by the winter and frost.

It is hereby ORDERED:

Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.

Dated: April 19, 2011 STATE OF MAINE VB PARKER SWENSON Docket No CUMCD-CR-2010-07118 296 GREELY RD CUMBERLAND ME 04021 DOCKET RECORD

DOB: 04/27/1988 Attorney: MICHAEL WHIPPLE State's Attorney: STEPHANIE ANDERSON THE HALLETT LAW FIRM 75 MARKET STREET SUITE 502 PO BOX 7508 PORTLAND ME 04112 RETAINED 10/20/2010

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