State of Maine v. Tran
This text of State of Maine v. Tran (State of Maine v. Tran) 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
oe CRIMINAL ACTION KENNEBEC, ss. REC'D &FILED = DockETNo. cR02-441 Nancy A. Desiarain Du} <2r/- A ge STATE OF MAINE MAY 29 2003 Clerk of Courts ORDER ON MOTION . Kennebec County TO SUPPRESS
KIM TRAN, DONALD |. GAP BRE
Defendant AUG 6 2003
This matter is before the court upon defendant’s motion to suppress due to extraterritorial stop. .: On May 24, 2002, Officer Harwood of the Gardiner Police Department, then of ..the Hallowell Police Department, noted a motor vehicle traveling 31 m.p.h. in a 25 m.p.h. zone at approximately 1:00 a.m. on Winthrop Street. The officer proceeded to follow the vehicle to the intersection of Winthrop Street and the Whitten Road. He observed the vehicle making a wide sweeping right-hand turn onto the Whitten Road, so wide that the vehicle entered the Whitten Road in the left lane. He then noted the vehicle travel onto the shoulder, then cross over the middle yellow line, then cross onto the shoulder at a location approximately at the boundary line between the City of Hallowell and the City of Augusta. Immediately upon crossing the boundary line, the officer activated his blue lights but the vehicle did not stop. Consequently, the officer activated his siren. The pursued vehicle went off the road onto the shoulder and further on stopped. Officer Harwood then radioed the Augusta Dispatch of his activities.
Title 30-A M.R.S.A. § 2671(2) provides, among other things:
The police officer has any authority in criminal or traffic infraction matters
beyond the limits of a municipality in which the officer is appointed, except: E. Arrest a person who travels beyond the limits of a municipality in which the officer is appointed when in fresh pursuit of that person...
As used in this paragraph:
(2) With respect to class D and class E crimes and traffic infractions, ‘fresh pursuit’ means instant pursuit of a person with intent to apprehend;
The court has examined a line of cases in this regard including State v. Harding, 508 A.2d 471 (Me. 1986); State v. Monteith, 519 A.2d 187 (Mer. 1986); State v. Hatch, 614 A.2d 1299 (Me. 1992); State v. Jolin, 639 a.2d 1062 (Me. 1994); State v. Pike, 642 A.2d 145 (Me. 1994); State v. Rideout, 761 A.2d 288 (Me. 2000); and finally, and most recently, State v. Menard, 2003 ME 69. In Menard, a Brunswick police officer observed a motor vehicle stopped at a stop sign for an “inordinate amount of time.” The officer then observed the vehicle turn left in a very wide radius. As the officer was observing the vehicle cross the dividing line between the towns of Brunswick and Topsham, he clocked the vehicle at 55 to 60 m.p.h. in a 45 m.p.h. zone. The officer advised his dispatcher and requested a call to the Topsham Police Department because he believed the driver was operating under the influence. However, concerned that the level of traffic in the area and operation of the driver represented a hazard, he chose not to wait for the Topsham police but stopped the vehicle on his own.
The court noted that the Constitutions of the United States and Maine require only the presence of a reasonable and articulable suspicion in order for an officer to make a valid investigatory stop of a vehicle. State v. Rideout, 761 A.2d 288, 290 (Me. 2000). It further noted that reasonable and articulable suspicion is an easier standard to meet than probable cause. Id. The court then noted that it had previously decided that speeding is an articulable fact that warrants an investigatory stop (citing State v. Bolduc,
722 A.2d 44, 45). The court also noted that it had previously concluded that an unusual turn may warrant an investigatory stop (citing State v. Dulac, 600 A.2d 1121 (Me. 1992)) (finding that it was objectively reasonable for the trooper to suspect that the defendant was operating under the influence when the trooper saw the defendant make a very wide turn that caused part of the vehicle to leave the paved surface of the road). The court refers us to State v. Harding for the proposition that an officer’s authority is measured at the moment of the arrest and by the nature of the offense. In doing so, it quotes the language from State v. Hatch, 614 A.2d 1299. In that case, a Bangor officer observed a vehicle undertaking suspicious activity in Bangor and followed it to Brewer. Contrary to the argument of defendant in the present case, the intent to apprehend must exist at the time of crossing of the municipal boundary line, and the court looked to the facts existent at the time of the arrest saying, “These observations. _ gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was operating under the influence in Bangor. The fact that the most incriminating observations took place in Brewer, instead of Bangor, is not relevant to the issues before us.” Hatch, 614 A.2d at 1303. Accordingly, in the instant case, at the time of the officer’s stop in Augusta, he had articulable and reasonable suspicion to believe, indeed, probable cause to believe, that the defendant was operating under the influence in Hallowell even though some of the suspicious activity may have taken place in Augusta.
The entry will be:
Defendant’s motion to suppress due to extraterroritial stop is DENIED.
Dated: May ZF 2003 eft Jie
Donald H. Marden Justice, Superior Court
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT vs KENNEBEC, ss.
KIM M TRAN Docket No AUGSC-CR-2002-00441
92 A WESTERN AVE AUGUSTA ME 04330 DOCKET RECORD
DOB: 08/23/1977 Attorney: WALTER MCKEE State's Attorney: BRIAN MAHANY LIPMAN & KATZ PA 227 WATER STREET - PO BOX 1051 AUGUSTA ME 04332-1051
Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: MISDEMEANOR (CLASS D,E)
Filing Date: 08/13/2002
Charge (s)
1 OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 05/24/2002 HALLOWELL 29-A 2411(1) Class D HARWOOD / HAL
Docket Events:
11/15/2002 Charge(s): 1 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL EDI ON 11/15/2002 @ 22:00
FILING DOCUMENT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 08/13/2002
Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 06/14/2002
Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION FOR DISCOVERY FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 06/14/2002
Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 09/20/2002
MOTION TO SUPPRESS DUE TO EXTRATERRITORIAL STOP Charge(s): 1 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 11/15/2002 @ 8:30
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 11/19/2002 Charge(s): 1 TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL RECVD BY COURT ON 11/18/2002
TRANSFER FROM AUGDC CR02-2044. 12/23/2002 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 01/06/2003 @ 9:00
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/24/2003 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOT HELD ON 01/07/2003
01/24/2003 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 01/27/2003
Page 1 of 2 Printed on:
05/29/2003 01/24/2003
01/29/2003
04/11/2003
05/29/2003
KIM M TRAN AUGSC-CR-2002-00441
DOCKET RECORD NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/24/2003 Charge(s): 1
HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOT HELD ON 11/15/2002 Charge(s): 1
MOTION - MOTION FOR DISCOVERY GRANTED ON 11/01/2002
COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL MOTION WAS GRANTED IN DISTRICT COURT. MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 01/27/2003
DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE
COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS CONTINUED ON 01/27/2003
HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 05/05/2003 @ 9:00
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. Tran, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-tran-mesuperct-2003.