State v. Googoo

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Googoo

525 A.2d 219, 1987 Me. LEXIS 724

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided May 6, 1987·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Utilizing the procedure set forth in Rule 11(a)(2) of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure, Gordon Googoo appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (York County) on his conditional pleas of guilty to violations of 29 M.R.S.A. § 2298 (Supp.1986) (habitual offender) (Class C) and 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1107 (1983) (possession of a schedule Y drug) (Class E). He contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officer who arrested him lacked a reasonable, ar-ticulable basis to stop him. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the officer did indeed have a reasonable, articu-lable basis to stop the defendant. See State v. Collins, 479 A.2d 344, 346 (Me. 1984).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

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

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.

Utilizing the procedure set forth in Rule 11(a)(2) of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure, Gordon Googoo appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (York County) on his conditional pleas of guilty to violations of 29 M.R.S.A. § 2298 (Supp.1986) (habitual offender) (Class C) and 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1107 (1983) (possession of a schedule Y drug) (Class E). He contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officer who arrested him lacked a reasonable, ar-ticulable basis to stop him. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the officer did indeed have a reasonable, articu-lable basis to stop the defendant. See State v. Collins, 479 A.2d 344, 346 (Me. 1984).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

State v. Googoo, 525 A.2d 219, 1987 Me. LEXIS 724 (Me. 1987).

Pincite

525 A.2d 219 (State v. Googoo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related