128 A.3d 1060
Me.2015Background
- On March 9, 2014 an officer observed James D. Morrison’s vehicle weaving and, near the crest of a hill, crossing completely into the oncoming lane, prompting a traffic stop.
- The officer noticed an odor of alcohol on Morrison, bloodshot/droopy eyes, and "thick" speech.
- Morrison admitted having had two beers earlier that night and failed to correctly complete one of three field sobriety tests.
- Morrison moved to suppress evidence from the stop, arrest, and Intoxilyzer test; the suppression court denied the motion.
- Morrison entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere; the trial court convicted and sentenced him.
- On appeal the Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, agreeing the stop was supported by reasonable articulable suspicion and the arrest by probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Morrison) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of traffic stop: Was there reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the investigatory stop? | Officer observed weaving and a safety risk (crossing into opposite lane); that behavior supports a brief stop. | Morrison: erratic driving was attributable to potholes/rough road conditions, not impairment; stop was therefore unsupported. | Stop upheld: officer had objectively reasonable, articulable suspicion based on weaving and driving in the wrong lane. |
| Probable cause for arrest and Intoxilyzer testing: Did officer have probable cause to arrest for OUI? | Odor of alcohol, bloodshot/droopy eyes, thick speech, admission of drinking, and failure of one field sobriety test provided probable cause. | Morrison contends evidence was insufficient to show his senses were affected by alcohol to any degree. | Arrest upheld: combined observations and admissions supplied probable cause to believe impairment existed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cote, 118 A.3d 805 (Me. 2015) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- State v. Diana, 89 A.3d 132 (Me. 2014) (upholding suppression denial if any reasonable view of evidence supports it)
- State v. Sylvain, 814 A.2d 984 (Me. 2003) (officer needs objectively reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop a vehicle)
- State v. Laforge, 43 A.3d 961 (Me. 2012) (erratic driving can create reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Porter, 960 A.2d 321 (Me. 2008) (similar holding that erratic operation supports stop)
- State v. Pelletier, 541 A.2d 1296 (Me. 1988) (erratic driving relevant to reasonable suspicion)
- State v. Pinkham, 565 A.2d 318 (Me. 1989) (safety-based stops permissible on specific, articulable facts)
- State v. Candage, 549 A.2d 355 (Me. 1988) (definition of probable cause to arrest)
- State v. Webster, 754 A.2d 976 (Me. 2000) (probable cause for OUI requires belief that senses are affected to any extent)
- State v. Izzo, 623 A.2d 1277 (Me. 1993) (officer assignment to OUI detail does not alone render a stop pretextual)