State of Maine v. Bryant A. Ciomei, 127 A.3d 548

In the early morning hours of November 20, 2013, a uniformed game warden in a marked patrol vehicle observed a pickup stopped at an intersection with headlights on and two people outside the vehicle in a very dark area; he suspected night hunting and urination.
The warden pulled his cruiser behind the truck (not blocking it), exited without lights or siren, announced “Hi. Game warden,” and asked what was happening.
The driver, Bryant Ciomei, approached the warden; the warden recognized Ciomei from prior contacts and smelled alcohol, observed bloodshot eyes and unsteady balance, and then administered field sobriety tests.
Ciomei was arrested and charged with criminal operating under the influence; he moved to suppress all evidence from the roadside encounter, arguing he was seized when the warden identified himself.
The District Court found the warden did not effect a Terry stop prior to observing signs of intoxication; Ciomei entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed the suppression ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ciomei was "seized" under the Fourth Amendment when the warden parked behind his truck and announced "Game warden."	Ciomei: he was seized the moment the warden identified himself, so the encounter required reasonable suspicion.	State: the warden’s approach, identification, and parked marked cruiser did not restrain Ciomei’s liberty; the contact was consensual until the warden observed signs of intoxication.	Court: No seizure occurred before the warden observed intoxication; announcing identity and parking behind the truck did not objectively restrain Ciomei.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (establishes that investigative stops require reasonable, articulable suspicion)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (seizure inquiry is whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
State v. Collier, 66 A.3d 563 (Me. 2013) (officer’s presence in vehicle and following does not automatically constitute a seizure)
State v. Moulton, 704 A.2d 361 (Me. 1997) (not all police–citizen encounters are seizures; consensual approach permissible)
State v. Cilley, 707 A.2d 79 (Me. 1998) (officer’s uncommunicated intent irrelevant; objective circumstances control seizure analysis)
State v. Gulick, 759 A.2d 1085 (Me. 2000) (approach and question in public place may be consensual and not a seizure)
State v. Garland, 482 A.2d 139 (Me. 1984) (distinguishable: request for identification can effect a seizure)