135 A.3d 824
Me.2016Background
- On Aug. 23, 2014 a game warden driving south on Route 220 observed Herbert R. Simmons Sr. driving north and making a right turn onto Finntown Road directly in front of the warden.
- The warden testified the right turn was “wide,” causing Simmons’s vehicle to enter the oncoming lane of Finntown Road by about half a vehicle width; Finntown Road was described as "extra wide."
- The warden stopped Simmons for making an unnecessary wide turn and for traveling in the wrong lane; subsequent field sobriety and intoxilyzer tests led to an OUI charge (29-A M.R.S. § 2411).
- Simmons moved to suppress evidence from the stop; at the suppression hearing the warden was the sole witness and his testimony was uncontroverted.
- The suppression court found the warden had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle because the turn was "inappropriate," and denied the motion; Simmons conditionally pleaded guilty and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warden’s observation of a single wide right turn into the oncoming lane provided reasonable articulable suspicion to stop the vehicle | Simmons argued the single, brief deviation (a one-time wide turn) was insufficient to support reasonable suspicion of a traffic violation or criminal activity | State (warden) argued the wide turn into the opposite lane violated § 2060(1) and created a public safety risk, supplying reasonable articulable suspicion for a stop | Court held the warden’s uncontroverted observation of the wide turn and entry into the other lane supplied specific and articulable facts supporting a stop for a suspected traffic infraction; suppression denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 55 A.3d 432 (Me. 2012) (court may infer necessary factual findings when not requested)
- State v. LaForge, 43 A.3d 961 (Me. 2012) (low threshold for articulable suspicion; more than a hunch)
- State v. Caron, 534 A.2d 978 (Me. 1987) (brief lane deviation without other signs did not support suspicion of intoxication)
- State v. Dulac, 600 A.2d 1121 (Me. 1992) (Caron does not categorically bar a stop for a single deviant maneuver)
- State v. Webber, 759 A.2d 724 (Me. 2000) (observed traffic infractions justify a stop)
- State v. Porter, 960 A.2d 321 (Me. 2008) (reasonableness of stops under Fourth Amendment)
- State v. Connor, 977 A.2d 1003 (Me. 2009) (stop justified by specific and articulable facts indicating law violation or safety risk)