State v. LaPlante
2011 ME 85
Me.
2011

Background

  • Trooper observed a red Pontiac speeding 71 mph in a 45 mph zone on Route 179.
  • The trooper paused the pursuit, then unexpectedly encountered LaPlante when a motorcycle passed us, and stopped LaPlante solely to inquire about the Pontiac's direction.
  • LaPlante had not been speeding or otherwise committing a traffic offense; there were no evident vehicle defects or safety-related justifications for a stop.
  • During questioning, the trooper noted LaPlante seemed unstable and spoke thick, prompting an investigation for operating under the influence.
  • LaPlante was charged with operating under the influence (Class C), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(C)(3); he moved to suppress the evidence.
  • The trial court denied the suppression motion; LaPlante entered a conditional guilty plea and was sentenced; the judgment later became the subject of appeal.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether information-seeking stop without suspicion is permissible LaPlante argues the stop was unreasonable because it sought information about a third-party speeding offense and lacked reasonable suspicion. State contends the stop furthered a legitimate public safety interest and was reasonable under Brown v. Texas balancing. The stop was unconstitutional; information-seeking stop to investigate a civil speeding offense cannot justify seizure.

Key Cases Cited

  • Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (three-factor Brown balancing for information-seeking stops)
  • Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (2004) (roadblock for witnesses; brief, systematic stops acceptable)
  • Gorneault, 2007 ME 49 (2007) (brief, pre-planned roadblock minimizes intrusion)
  • Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (checkpoints less intrusive than roving patrols)
  • Kent, 2011 ME 42 (ME 2011) (sobriety checkpoint unreasonable when lengthy and discretionary)
  • Ryland, 241 Neb. 74 (1992) (noncriminal speeding generally not grave public concern)
  • Pinkham, 565 A.2d 318 (Me. 1989) (safety reasons may justify warrantless seizures)
  • Gipson v. State, 268 S.W.3d 185 (Tex.App.2008) (investigation of serious crimes can justify stops)
  • Baxter v. State, 626 S.W.2d 935 (Ark. 1982) (robbery investigation stoppage validity)
  • Williamson v. United States, 607 A.2d 471 (D.C. 1992) (repeated discharge of firearm context)
  • Cloukey, 486 A.2d 143 (Me. 1985) (roadblock stop factors include duration and discretion)
Read the full case