Lead Opinion
[¶ 1] Daniel Whitney appeals from a judgment of conviction of one count of operating under the influence (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(B)(1) (2011), entered in the District Court (Ellsworth, Mallonee, J.) following his conditional guilty plea. Whitney argues that the court (A Murray, J.) erred in issuing an order denying his motion to suppress evidence derived from a police officer’s stop of his vehicle. Because we conclude that the stop was unconstitutional, we vacate the judgment and the order denying the motion to suppress.
I. BACKGROUND
[¶ 2] The following facts are not disputed. On November 13, 2010, around 1:40 a.m., Officer Shawn Willey of the Ells-worth Police Department responded to the scene of a single-vehicle accident on Christian Ridge Road in Ellsworth. The vehicle had gone off the road and struck a utility pole; it was on its roof and its windows were broken. The individual who reported the accident had also informed the dispatcher that a male was walking on Christian Ridge Road away from the accident scene towards Red Bridge Road. By the time Officer Willey arrived, the vehicle’s operator was gone and he did not observe anyone walking on Christian Ridge Road. He also did not observe any blood at the scene.
[¶ 8] Officer Willey was unable to determine who owned the vehicle based on its registration information because the person who had registered it was no longer the vehicle’s owner. Officer Willey attempted to track the operator from the accident scene with his police dog. The dog led him to an area near Red Bridge Road, but then lost the scent. Officer Willey explained that after the unsuccessful track, he and another officer “began doing a roving patrol in the area, trying to locate somebody in case they were still on foot.” He stated that the purpose of the “roving patrol” was to “make sure that, A, they didn’t need any medical attention, they weren’t injured, and, B, they were involved in the criminal act of leaving the scene of an accident.”
[¶ 5] As Officer Willey began speaking with the pedestrians, he observed that the vehicle was about to drive away and instructed the driver, Daniel Whitney, to “wait here”; he acknowledged that at that point, Whitney was not free to leave. Officer Willey explained that he instructed Whitney not to leave because he “just wanted to verify that he wasn’t involved in the crash, or he had a passenger with him and make sure that he hadn’t picked somebody up along the way from the crash.” Whitney waited for three or four minutes while Officer Willey conversed with the pedestrians. After Officer Willey determined that the pedestrians had recently left a party and were not involved in the accident, he turned his attention to Whitney. In speaking with Whitney, Officer Willey detected the odor of intoxicating beverages and noticed an open can of beer in the vehicle. These events ultimately led to Whitney being charged with operating under the influence.
[¶ 6] On June 29, 2011, Whitney filed a motion to suppress all the evidence obtained from Officer Willey’s stop, arguing that the stop was not justified because Officer Willey had not observed any illegal activity prior to instructing Whitney not to leave. Following a hearing, the court denied the motion to suppress in a written order on November 3, 2011. The court found that there was no articulable suspicion that Whitney was committing a crime or a traffic violation before Officer Willey told him to “wait here” and that Officer Willey had instructed Whitney not to leave because Officer Willey “wanted to verify that neither [Whitney or his passenger] had been involved in the crash.”
[¶ 7] The court then analyzed whether Whitney’s seizure was reasonable pursuant to the Fourth Amendment for information-seeking purposes, applying the Brown v. Texas three-factor test adopted in State v. LaPlante,
[¶ 8] Whitney entered a conditional guilty plea on December 19, 2011, following the denial of his motion to suppress, preserving his right to appeal the motion court’s decision. He then brought this appeal.
A. Fourth Amendment Standards
[¶ 9] When the facts before the motion court are not disputed, “we review the denial of the motion to suppress de novo as to issues of law.” LaPlante,
[¶ 10] The United States Supreme Court has explained that “special law enforcement concerns will sometimes justify highway stops without individualized suspicion.” Illinois v. Lidster,
[¶ 11] At the outset, we recognize that the United States Supreme Court has distinguished information-seeking stops at highway checkpoints from random suspi-cionless stops associated with roving patrols. See Sitz,
[¶ 12] Officer Willey was engaged in a roving patrol ninety minutes after his arrival at the scene of the accident in an attempt to locate the vehicle’s operator, who he believed was engaged in criminal conduct, when he seized Whitney. Officer Willey testified that he did not observe any illegal conduct prior to seizing Whitney, and he stated that he told Whitney not to leave because he “just wanted to verify that he wasn’t involved in the crash, or he had a passenger with him and make sure that he hadn’t picked somebody up along the way from the crash.” The motion court also found that there was no reasonable articulable suspicion to justify the stop and that Officer Willey seized Whitney because he “wanted to verify that neither [Whitney or his passenger] had been involved in the crash.” Officer Willey’s random, suspicionless stop of Whitney in an attempt to locate a criminal suspect is significantly distinguishable from a highway checkpoint stop aimed at gathering information from the public. See Lidster,
B. Brown v. Texas Three-Factor Test
[¶ 13] Whitney’s seizure was also unreasonable pursuant to the three-factor test articulated in Brown. As we have explained, pursuant to Brown, “a seizure for information-seeking purposes may be reasonable if the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure and the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest outweigh the severity of the interference with individual liberty.” La-Plante,
1. Gravity of the Public Concern
[¶ 14] We acknowledged in LaPlante that the investigation of serious crimes such as fatal hit-and-run accidents, burglaries, and robberies have “been deemed sufficiently important to outweigh certain interferences with the liberty interests of stopped motorists.” Id. ¶ 11. In contrast, we observed that a civil speeding infraction did not present a similarly grave public concern. Id. ¶ 13. The crime here, failure to report a non-fatal accident, although more serious than a civil speeding infraction, is a Class E misdemeanor. See 29-A M.R.S. § 2251(8)(A) (2011). Accordingly, this crime, although of greater concern
2. The Degree to Which the Stop Advances the Public Interest
[¶ 15] In LaPlante, we acknowledged that “motorist stops may significantly advance the investigation of serious crimes in cases where motorists are stopped soon after the crime and in the vicinity where the crime occurred because the stopped motorist might well have been in the vicinity of the crime at the time it occurred.” Id. ¶ 14 (quotation marks omitted). Here, however, the stop of a motorist three to four miles from the scene of a single vehicle accident, at least ninety minutes after the accident occurred, is unlikely to significantly aid an investigation into whether the vehicle’s operator has reported the accident to the proper authorities. Moreover, the vehicle’s operator can usually be identified and located by obtaining the vehicle’s readily available registration information. See, e.g., State v. Prescott,
3. The Severity of the Interference with Individual Liberty
[¶ 16] Courts have upheld information-seeking highway stops when “the stop is brief, unlikely to cause anxiety, and planned ahead so as to minimize officer discretion in the field.” LaPlante,
[¶ 17] Here, as in LaPlante, there was no formal restriction on Officer Willey’s discretion and the stop had a significant potential to cause alarm and anxiety. Officer Willey’s seizure of Whitney was made in the absence of any oversight or accountability, and Whitney was required to wait until Officer Willey had finished with the pedestrians before learning the nature and purpose of his detention. See Kent,
III. CONCLUSION
[¶ 18] In summary, we conclude that because Whitney was seized in the absence of any reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal conduct during a police officer’s roving patrol, the seizure was unconstitutional. Further, the public’s interest concerning the misdemeanor crime of failure to report an accident, and the degree to which that interest is advanced when a motorist is stopped at random, more than an hour after police have responded to the accident, to verify that the motorist and his passenger were not involved in the accident, is outweighed by the significant interference with the stopped motorist’s liberty interest.
The entry is:
Judgment vacated; order denying the motion to suppress vacated; remanded for the entry of an order granting the motion to suppress.
Notes
. Officer Willey used the phrase "leaving the scene of an accident” to describe the crime he believed the vehicle’s operator was committing, but also testified that the accident was a reportable one because of the amount of damage the vehicle had sustained. See 29-A M.R.S. § 2251(8)(A) (2011). Leaving the scene of an accident involving death or bodily injury is a separate offense from failure to report an accident. See 29-A M.R.S. § 2252 (2011). The State argued during the hearing on the motion to suppress that the crime Officer Willey was investigating was failure to report an accident. The motion court, in its written order, however, referred to the crime under investigation as "leaving the scene of
. A stop may also be justified in the absence of reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal conduct “when an officer’s assessment of the existence of specific and articulable facts indicating a possible ... public safety risk is objectively reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances.” State v. Connor,
Dissenting Opinion
with whom ALEXANDER, J., joins, dissenting.
[¶ 19] Although I agree with the Court’s articulation of the law governing the stop at issue, I would conclude that the suppression court’s application of that law was correct and should be affirmed. I must, therefore, respectfully dissent.
[¶ 20] A warrantless stop on a roadway “for information-seeking purposes may be reasonable if ‘the gravity of the public concerns served by the seizure [and] the degree to which the seizure advances the public interest’ outweigh ‘the severity of the interference with individual liberty.’” State v. LaPlante,
[¶ 21] Thus, the suppression court was required to reach its findings and address each of the three relevant factors, mindful of investigatory and safety concerns, and then balance those factors to assess the reasonableness of the seizure. As the Court agrees, the factual findings of the court are supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. See State v. LaForge,
I. GRAVITY OF THE PUBLIC CONCERNS SERVED BY THE SEIZURE
[¶ 22] An investigation of a serious crime is “sufficiently important to outweigh certain interferences with the liberty interests of stopped motorists.” Id. ¶ 11. By contrast, an investigation of a civil offense generally does not rise to such a level of importance that an impingement on the liberty of a motorist without reasonable articulable suspicion would be justified. Id. ¶ 12.
[¶ 23] The officer here was investigating a crime related to failing to report, or leaving the scene of, an accident. A failure to report an accident involving apparent property damage of $1,000 or more constitutes a Class E crime, as does the failure to report an accident when the accident has resulted in personal injury. See 29-A M.R.S. § 2251(1), (8) (2011). Leaving the scene of an accident can also constitute a Class D crime if any personal injuries have resulted or a Class C crime if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly left the scene of the accident and serious bodily injury or death resulted from the accident. See 29-A M.R.S. § 2252 (2011).
[¶ 24] When the officer came upon "Whitney’s vehicle stopped along the side of the road, the officer was investigating a rollover accident that could have resulted in serious injuries, including potential head injuries, to any occupants of the overturned vehicle. Thus, at the time that he encountered Whitney, the officer was both (1) investigating a potentially serious crime to determine what effect the accident had on any individuals who were in the vehicle when it hit a pole and rolled onto its roof, and (2) looking for any person who may have been injured, perhaps a person disoriented as a result of a head injury.
[¶ 25] In addition to the officer’s goal of furthering the criminal investigation, it was objectively reasonable for him to be concerned about the safety of any occupants of the vehicle that he discovered upside-down on the side of the road. See LaPlante,
[¶ 26] With an understanding of the public interests served by the stop at issue, it is necessary to examine the second factor for consideration: the extent to which the brief stop advanced those public interests.
II. DEGREE TO WHICH THE STOP ADVANCES THE PUBLIC INTEREST
[¶ 27] “Courts have recognized that motorist stops may significantly advance the investigation of serious crimes in cases where motorists are stopped soon after the crime and in the vicinity where the crime occurred.” LaPlante,
[¶ 28] When the officer approached three pedestrians speaking to someone in Whitney’s already-stopped vehicle, he would have been remiss not to check on the pedestrians or the vehicle’s occupants. These were among the few individuals whom the officer had encountered during those early morning hours. Objectively viewed, asking the pedestrians and anyone who might be in Whitney’s vehicle if they had any information about the accident or about anyone who might be injured could significantly advance the investigation and help the officer determine if anybody needed medical attention. The remaining question, therefore, is whether the extent of the intrusion on Whitney’s liberty was so severe as to undermine the reasonableness of the stop undertaken to investigate a potentially serious crime and address any possible injuries.
III. SEVERITY OF THE INTERFERENCE WITH INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY
[¶ 29] Every traffic stop interferes with a person’s liberty interest to some “not insubstantial” degree because the motorist “loses the freedom to travel without interruption.” Id. ¶ 16. Nonetheless, the significance of the intrusion is diminished if, for instance, “the stop is brief, unlikely to cause anxiety, and planned ahead so as to minimize officer discretion in the field,” as in a planned, visible roadblock where officers would ask questions that it would take only a matter of seconds to answer. Id. ¶¶ 17-18.
[¶ 30] Roving patrols are generally regarded as more intrusive than roadblocks because they “often operate at night on seldom-traveled roads, and their approach may frighten motorists.” Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz,
IV. BALANCING OF FACTORS
[¶ 31] Given the minimal scope of the intrusion on Whitney’s liberty as compared to the brief stop’s potential to yield information crucial to the safety of anyone who might have been involved in the rollover accident that the officer was investigating, and to the criminal investigation itself, I would hold that the officer’s direction to Whitney to remain stopped at the roadside until he could first speak with the simultaneously encountered pedestrians was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. I would affirm the decision of the motion court.