State v. Whitney
2012 ME 105
| Me. | 2012Background
- Whitney after a single-vehicle accident was located via roving patrol; officer encountered pedestrians and then Whitney and detected odor of alcohol and an open beer can.
- Officer Willey conducted a roving patrol about 90 minutes after arrival to locate the operator suspected of leaving the scene.
- Whitney was seized when the officer instructed him to “wait here” and questioned him without observing any illegal activity prior to the seizure.
- Motion to suppress all evidence from the stop was denied; Whitney pled guilty conditioned on preserving appeal rights.
- Court concluded the stop was unconstitutional, vacated judgment and suppression order, and remanded for entry of an order granting the motion to suppress.
- The crime investigated was determined to be failure to report an accident, not leaving the scene of a fatal incident; safety concerns were not enough to justify the stop.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the stop of Whitney was valid at inception. | Whitney | Whitney argues no reasonable articulable suspicion existed. | Unconstitutional at inception; stop invalid. |
| Whether the seizure is justified under Brown three-factor test. | Whitney | Stop advanced public interest despite less grave crime. | Unreasonable under Brown; factors weigh against stopping. |
| Whether roving patrol stops without suspicion are permissible in information-seeking investigations. | Whitney | Roving patrols can be valid information-seeking stops. | Not permissible here; discretion without oversight renders stop unconstitutional. |
| Whether the information sought aided the investigation sufficiently to justify intrusion. | Whitney | Investigation into accident and potential injuries justified intrusion. | Not sufficiently advances public interest to justify seizure. |
| Whether the crime mischaracterized affected the constitutional analysis. | Whitney | Investigation into failure to report an accident. | Court treated as failure to report; analysis remains unchanged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (U.S. 1979) (Brown three-factor framework for information-seeking seizures)
- Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419 (U.S. 2004) (checkpoint-like information gathering allowed under certain conditions)
- Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1990) (roving patrol vs. checkpoint distinctions in stops)