State v. Dean

of Maine STATE

David DEAN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. May

Submitted on Briefs Aug.

Decided Mills, Atty., Joseph T.

Jаnet Dist. O’Con- nor, Paris, Atty., for the Asst. Dist. South State. Jenness, Jr., Paris,

John S. for de- South fendant. WATHEN, C.J., GLASSMAN,

Before CLIFFORD, RUDMAN JJ. RUDMAN, Justice. ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‍required permis General, Attorney

sion from the 15 M.R.S.A. 2115-A(5) (1980); 37(b), § ap M.R.Crim.P. peals judgment from the entered in the Su (Oxford J.) Alexander, perior County, judgment after the court vacated thе entered (South Sheldon, Paris, in the District Court J.) guilty plea on David Dean’s conditional charge (Pamph.1993). 29 M.R.S.A. 1312-B Be cause the District officer who Dean’s car had the erroneous, activity” was not we vacate Court’s order and reinstate the judgment District Court’s of conviction. underlying undisputed. At approximately Tuesday, April 11:00 Officer Dennis Department spotted South Paris Police patrolling Dean’s car while new residential on Cobble Hill end, Road. The road is a dead during development was uninhabited week- days. Sampson patrolling the area at (quoting State intrusion.’” request development’s property of warrant (Me.1992) Dulac, complaints of of van- 600 A.2d owners after number v. comрlaint Ohio, had been made that Terry dalism. No 392 U.S. (quoting v. (1968))). unremarkable. night, and Dean’s was 20 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. solely Sampson stopped him because of con- suspect that criminal The officer must particular at that time and immi- happened, hаppening or is duct has they up Sampson “wanted to see what was 620 A.2d nent. State to, they ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‍if property see were landowners or (Me.1992).1 court must find that “The owners, get some names ease we did actually entertained prоblems up that area.” suspicion was reasonable under the that the Worster, Court, 611 A.2d The a well-reasoned circumstances.” Sampson necessary suspicion opinion, may ruled that had the neces- infer the The cоurt sary suspicion” justify to testimony, from the officer’s stop. The court stated: testify he had explicitly that officer need respectful Chapman, requisite

I’m not mindful but State argument suggesting that I’m conduct The through crime anyone that who walks may entirely lawful. actually be interrogated. I stopped area can be Fitzgerald, 620 A.2d at 875. But go wouldn’t dare that far. I would Sampson Dean’s contention is that Officer passing through suggest anybody that Dean any suspicion that did not entеrtain particular crime area for no activity. Dean rais- engaged was criminal place is uninhabit- reason —because the any high- ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‍stops specter es the of random might ed—in the dead of and alone area, justified solely by the fact that crime my understanding if well be person happens to in that detained v. Prouse is correct.... Delaware area. negative, prove has that [T]he State to arbitrarily. act I be-

the officer did not Court, however, understood The District proved lieve that the State explicitly made the contentions under not act arbi- these circumstances did findings: required trarily deny to the motion Now, point I’ll out that the facts this appealed successfully particular this defendant suggest case that quoted portion The court driving along a road at dead-end including suppression hearing transcript, nighttime. in the The —the structures Sampson’s that to see statemеnt he “wanted uninhabited, and it had been area were up to.” court then held what The variety scene of a area which had been the more had no than “insuffi- which, fact, brought of criminal behavior stop, cient hunch” vacаted ... then the own- if not residents appeals. Dean’s conviction. State police. They ers to the asked directly We review the decision Ordinarily, offi- surveillance. creased Worster, 611 the District Court. State v. particular this cer not have could (Me.1992); Arn n. 2 circumstances, giv- But under vehicle. heiter, this after en the fact that occurred well officer had the reason Whether an place virtually uninhab- that the able warrant ited, street and a it wаs a dead-end fact, only for question reviewed which a sub- area —area that —in Worster, clear error. perpe- amount of crime stantial past that the in the recent trated To make a valid —I find because hе reason- properly acted ‘specific an officer must “act on basis prior reports ably suspected, based on which, ra taken with and articulable area, this facts, activity in the from those tional inferenсes Pinkham, enough. 319-20 safety A violation is (1983) (two shopping men walked across particular could be Defendant recent- such behavior. parking lot at 1:25 a.m. center burglaries); 001114; ly by rash of added.) found (Emphasis thus (Mo.1973) Stark, (pick- 502 S.W.2d actually entertained that Officer occupants entered carrying three defendant, Dean, that the complex apartment left at 1:00 a.m. an and activity, and some sort crimes); by numerous (3) Sampson’s suspicion was reasonable. Halstead, 1138, 1148-49 two are not errone- The first (R.I.1980) (truck slowly through drove ous. a.m. and high-crime neighborhood at 4:30 the real issue is whether two occupants gawked police). at can articulable facts relied on the cоurt two yield a reasonable Those decision, involving police also In a recent in an presence are: Dean’s area of an ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‍area due to several surveillance reports; recent crime аnd Court erred plaints, we held that the District any reason to be in an uninhabit absence of grant motion to by failing to the defendant’s night. area at It is well-settled that a ed Nelson, 720, 721 State v. crime area mere police stakеd In that See investigatory stop. an does not response to a apartment complex an out Texas, 47, 52, Brown v. 443 99 S.Ct. U.S. Id. complaints. at 721-22. number of theft (1979); Wayne 61 L.Ed.2d 357 watching complex, police officer While and A Treatise LaFave, Search Seizure: R. pickup truck people observed two 9.3(c) Fourth Amendment on the at 457-58 truck, left the sharing a beer. One of them (“simply being about car, the truck drove got into his own and as a should not of itself ever bе viewed truck and away. The officer make an sufficient basis to operating for under the arrested the driver (2d 1987). However, stop”) ed. the combina drinking a held that an adult influence. We activity with other tion of the recent criminal over single can of beer ease, the time of articulable facts —in this nearly an hour committed no the course of uninhabit day and the fact that the area was kind, police any and therefore the violation оf suspicion. State v. ed—creates a reasonable Id. speculation. suspicion was mere officer’s Fortin, (Me.1993) (look at case, however, .Nelson In at 722. circumstances). Many up totality of cases park- sitting in а truck defendant was finding hold a reasonable housing complex. occupied ing lot of See, e.g., v. Ric United States similar facts. Dean, contrast, driving through Cir.1984) (car kus, (3d F.2d development site on a dead end uninhabited very slowly at 3:30 a.m. in аrea travelled night. at His situation is street at 11:00 burglaries) recently victimized numerous distinguishable that of the defendant (“The criminal ac reputation of an area for Nelson. upon fact which a tivity is an articulable analogous to that is more Dean’s situation Unit rely.”); may legitimately police officer in State v. of the defendant (1st Ogden, 703 F.2d ed States v. police After A.2d 874 Cir.1983) (four trailer out-of-state tractor entering spotted Fitzgerald’s car officer faсility at deep-water docking trucks at turn-around, known to be the site of private authorities coast where in area of Maine dumping, posted frequent illegal trash on) going drug smuggling was knew that signs by trespassing” the owner. with “no (“there legitimate reason for was no into the the officer’s vehicle drove When Hol there”); United States being trucks turn-around, standing Cir.1975) (car the defendant land, (9th 510 F.2d got into car. The defendant then next to his lightly-travelled very slowly down travelled away. Thе officer car and drove drug facto known road at 1:00 a.m. near dirt vehicle, saw that the defen- the defendant’s as police at officers ry, occupants stared Ellis, displayed under the dant evidence People Ill.App.3d they passed); alcohol, him and arrested influence of N.E.2d 68 Ill.Dec. part speculation” Although ille- never witnessed to sustain gality (Fitzgerald vio- impropriety or never trespassing signs), lated the no we affirmed dead-end strеet out behavior no Tuesday was in sense at 11:00 pre- on the “based inherently suspicious, and the illegal or even littering trespassing,” vious the fact that officer’s to “see what desire Fitzgerald was outside his car the dark best, stems, “A from a hunch.1 to” approached, the officer and the fact when justify a officer’s hunch will Fitzgerald he tried to leave when saw the vehicle must stopping reasons for Similarly, Id. at cruiser. Officer ruse.” pretext a mere Sampson’s suspicion engendered by prior complaints with combined other facts —the time of the absence a The court relies on determination any apparent reason to be in an uninhabited adjacent which tо the street on housing development. uninhabited ex- Dean had been intoxication, cept “[B]ut [this] and that the residents of weekends investigatory stop.” would have been brief police to conduct the area had askеd the modified). (slightly investigatory stop An particularly patrols, on weekends when extra normally of motor a minimal vehicle is other crimes in vandalism and the by person’s into a intrusion the state affairs. notes, court it the area had occurred. As the (Me. Thurlow, is well settled that 1984). Balancing the facts on which Officer area does stop against to make relied regards court stop. What the arbitrary right free justifying articulable facts” as “other by the we intrusions find District reality, speculations enter- are mere the officer’s pres- by the officer because of Dean’s tained justified was reasonable way in public an area where there ence on a erroneous. complaints of vandalism or other entry is: damage property. ‍‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​‌​‍Each of cases cited position involves by support the court to its Judgment Superior of the vacated. beyond the defendant’s mere additional Superior Remanded to Court with area, e.g., police presence in a ob- judgment affirming enter structions to defendant, by the unusual behavior served judgment of the Court. private property, unusual intrusion onto vehicle, unusu- operаtion of the vehicle’s WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD and al location. JJ., concurring. right from an to be free The constitutional GLASSMAN, Justice, dissenting. abridged solely on illegal stop should not be day of week or time of the basis respectfully dissent. We way. operated public day is car reemphasized that the reasonable articulable inconsistent requires than mere Such arbitrariness suspicion standard “more issue in noting Nelson were not at distinguish court Nelson seeks merely sitting рickup whether that Nelson was which turned on occupied housing parking lot provided drinking a can beer car plex a motor whereas Dean was observed suspicion that a crime had articulable largely way public leading out of a on a This case 638 A.2d 722. taken site. This uninhabited residential inapposite turns the site of surroundings which because the protections activity by afforded the Fourth Amend- Dean. I would affirm judgment of the. ment. 645 A.2d at 621. The facts support this case do not the court’s deter- mination that the officer who

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Dean

Court Name: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Date Published: Aug 5, 1994

Citation: 645 A.2d 634

Court Abbreviation: Me.