State v. Cunneen, 205 A.3d 885

Background

On March 28, 2017 an officer followed a van leaving a parking area known for drug complaints; the van pulled over on a dark, lightly traveled residential street.
The officer did not activate front emergency lights or siren while following; he later activated a rear light after the van stopped and approached the driver with a flashlight.
When the officer approached, he observed a white powdery residue in Cunneen’s nostril and smelled alcohol; he then asked Cunneen to exit and place his hands on the van.
Cunneen was uncooperative, repeatedly pulled away, shouted, and threw an object into a snowbank; later the officer retrieved a pill bottle from the snowbank containing hydrocodone and diazepam.
Cunneen was indicted on multiple drug-possession counts and resisting arrest; he moved to suppress evidence from the roadside encounter claiming it was an unconstitutional detention.
The suppression motion was denied; after a jury trial Cunneen was convicted on three counts and sentenced (one-year term with all but seven days suspended, probation, mandatory fines). Cunneen appealed denial of suppression and raised sentencing error claims.

Issues

Issue	Cunneen's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the roadside encounter was a Fourth Amendment seizure requiring reasonable suspicion	Cunneen: officer’s following, turning around, approaching with flashlight and activating rear light constituted a show of authority; he was detained when contacted	State: no seizure until officer observed white powder in nostril; initial contact was consensual	Court: No seizure before officer observed white powder; officer’s conduct prior was a consensual encounter, investigatory detention justified after observation
Whether evidence (pill bottle and pills) should be suppressed as fruit of an unlawful detention	Cunneen: all evidence stemming from the encounter should be excluded	State: evidence obtained after lawful investigatory detention was admissible	Court: suppression denied; evidence admissible because detention was lawful when initiated
Whether the court double-counted resisting behavior as an aggravating factor in sentencing under 17-A M.R.S. § 1252-C	Cunneen: court considered his resisting behavior both in setting the basic sentence and again in setting maximum sentence (double counting)	State: sentencing consideration was proper; behavior was considered once for the Class C charge in step two; Cunneen actually recommended the sentence imposed	Court: No double-counting; sentencing claim not cognizable on direct appeal and, in any event, court considered conduct only in step two for the Class C sentence
Whether sentencing-process error is reviewable on direct appeal	Cunneen: challenges the court’s application of the §1252‑C framework	State: departures from the Hewey/§1252‑C process are not reviewable on direct appeal; remedy is sentence review panel	Court: Error (if any) required discretionary sentence-review application; claim is not reviewable on direct appeal

Key Cases Cited

State v. Collier, 66 A.3d 563 (Me. 2013) (objective seizure test and factors distinguishing consensual encounter from detention)
State v. Ciomei, 127 A.3d 548 (Me. 2015) (Fourth Amendment seizure is judged objectively by whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave)
State v. Gulick, 759 A.2d 1085 (Me. 2000) (police following a vehicle does not necessarily constitute a seizure)
State v. Moulton, 704 A.2d 361 (Me. 1997) (observation of indicia of drug/alcohol use can justify investigatory detention)
State v. Seamon, 165 A.3d 342 (Me. 2017) (sentence‑setting framework and limits on factual findings review)
State v. Marquis, 181 A.3d 684 (Me. 2018) (standard of review for suppression rulings: factual findings for clear error, legal conclusions de novo)
State v. Cunningham, 715 A.2d 156 (Me. 1998) (departure from Hewey/§1252‑C sentencing process is not reviewable on direct appeal)