The opinion
RECE! YER AND FILED
STATE OF MAINE Kei EP CLDERIOR COURT SUPERIOR COURT
<ENNE CIVIL ACTION
BEC, ss. -
100) SEP 27 A 4% OL SOCKET NO: R03. bul ;
Be AA oer —4 a9 p20
STATE OF MAINE DES ARDIN
v. ORDER ON MOTION
TO SUPPRESS
- AIDAN T. QUINN,
a4 oP
COLE |
Defendant he
NOV 35 2004
This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to suppress any and all
evidence obtained by the State of Maine as a result of a stop and detention of the
defendant by a member of the Waterville Police Department on October 25, 2003.
During the evening of October 24" and the early morning hours of October 25%,
2003, a Waterville Police officer in a marked cruiser was on duty in the downtown area
of Waterville. At approximately 2:00 a.m., he was in his vehicle parked in the parking
lot of the Webber Insurance Agency on Spring Street near the intersection of Spring
Street and Silver Street and an entrance to the Concourse. From that vantage point, he
could observe the entire Concourse, including an internal intersection of travel lanes
near the Concourse entrance from Main Street which is a four-way stop, 1.e., a stop sign
in all four directions. He observed a Chevrolet Impala proceed from the Main Street
entrance through the four-way intersection without stopping. The vehicle traveled
toward the officer through the Concourse towards the intersection of Silver Street and
Spring Street and stopped for the traffic light. When the light changed, the Chevrolet,
later determined to be the vehicle the defendant was operating, proceeded at a high rate
through the intersection onto Silver Street. The officer proceeded behind the
defendant's vehicle at a distance of approximately three car lengths for a third to a half
a mile observing the defendant traveling at the rate of 40 MPH. in the posted 25
M.P.H. zone of Silver Street. The officer also observed the defendant “weaving” from
time-to-time by drifting within the fog line and the centerline. At times the left tires
were on top of the centerline.
Nearing the end of Silver Street, the officer observed the defendant slowing to 30
M.P.H., enter onto Kennedy Memorial Drive where it changes to four lanes and
continue in the right travel lane. While on Kennedy Memorial Drive, the defendant's
vehicle started to drift to the left over the white dotted line, the defendant put on his left
turn signal and went into the left lane. As the vehicle approached the traffic lights at
Shaw’s Plaza, the officer saw the traffic light change to yellow and observed the
defendant brake the vehicle, then jolt forward through the light. The officer followed
the defendant for about a quarter of a mile where the defendant was traveling 50
M.P.H. in the posted 35 M.P.H. zone.
At the location of the Burger King near the entrance to Interstate 95, the officer
activated his blue lights and strobe lights and observed the defendant put on his right
turn signal and drift to the right lane. However, the defendant did not stop but,
instead, continued on slowly. At that point, the officer gave a “short burst” of his siren
while traveling through the Interstate 95 overpass and he notified his dispatch of the
pursuit. Some distance later, in front of Charlie’s Ford dealership, the defendant’s
vehicle stopped.
The officer testified that his total observation of the defendant was
approximately 2.7 miles. He further testified that he had a full and unobstructed view
of the Concourse and, in particular, the four-way stop intersection.
Defendant challenges the credibility of the officer’s testimony. He argues that
because the officer testified as to multiple instances of violations causing an articulable
suspicion that the operator was impaired, he acted on none of them until the vehicle
3
had traveled a substantial distance. The defendant would ask the court to find that the
obvious inference from those facts are that the operation of the vehicle was sO
marginally incorrect in each of the instances that they would not constitute an
articulable suspicion and the officer had no legal and constitutional grounds for causing
the stop and detention.
Defendant further espouses a rather novel challenge to the credibility of the
officer by suggesting improper bias and motivation. At the date and time in question, it
was well known that a movie for television was being filmed in the
Waterville/Skowhegan area by HBO. It was also well known that the participants in
the movie frequented a location known as the Bread Box Café. The Bread Box Café is
located such that it is adjacent to the Concourse and directly opposite across the
Concourse from the officer’s location on Spring Street. A further inference is that the
officer was observing the Bread Box Café and the vehicles leaving that establishment
knowing that persons of some renown would be leaving and driving after an evening of
socializing. The requested inference goes even further to suggest that the officer did not
stop the vehicle because any of the complained of acts were sufficient in and of
themselves, but because he suspected a “famous” person was driving and that he
wanted to beef up his articulable suspicion.
To support these inferences, the defendant submits a videotape from the squad
room of the Waterville Police Department where the intoxilyzer was administered to
the defendant. There are assertions that the officer told another Waterville Police officer
that he stopped the defendant for driving 25 M.P.H. in a 40 M-P.H. zone, contrary to his
testimony. The defendant further argues that the videotape shows that officers of the
Waterville Police Department were ridiculing the defendant in his absence, laughing at
4
the arrest and otherwise acting unprofessionally such as to affect their credibility as
witnesses in the entire transaction.
In order to support the brief investigatory stop of a motor vehicle, such as the
stop in this case, a police officer must have an articulable suspicion that criminal
conduct or a civil violation has occurred, is occurring, or is about to Occur, and the
officer’s suspicion must be “objectively reasonable in the totality of the circumstances.”
State v. Cusack, 649 A.2d 16 (Me. 1994). This court must decide whether the officer
possessed a reasonable and articulable suspicion to support an investigatory stop of an
automobile. State v. Brown, 675 A.2d 504 (Me. 1996). In order to disregard the specific
uncontradicted observations of the officer that the defendant did not stop for a stop
sign, exceeded the speed limit, in the early morning hours, weaving in his travel lane,
the court would have to be satisfied that the events did not happen and the officer was
participating in a “set up.” While it does appear to be an exceedingly long distance for
time of observations and somewhat contrary to the officer's responsibility to interfere
with a dangerous condition on the highway, and while it appears the conduct of the
officers as recorded on the videotape could be considered something less than
professional, the court finds no basis to conclude that the events observed by the
officers did not happen. Instead, the conduct by the officer must be considered in light
of the weight to be given by a factfinder of his testimony as to any relationship with
impaired driving.
The articulable suspicion standard is extremely low. Interpreting suspicious
conduct in the operation of a vehicle is vital to the safety of other motorists on the
highway. The court finds no constitutional infirmity under the facts of this motion.
The entry will be:
Defendant’s motion to suppress is DENIED.
Dated: September _2¥ _, 2004 LEE
Donald H. Marden
Justice, Superior Court
STATE ‘OF MAINE
: VS
AIDAN T QUINN
351 HILLCREST ROAD
ENGLEWOOD NJ 07631
SUPERIOR COURT
KENNEBEC, ss.
Docket No AUGSC-CR-2003-00486
DOCKET RECORD
DOB: 03/08/1959
Attorney: M MURPHY
JABAR BATTEN RINGER & MURPHY
ONE CENTER STREET
WATERVILLE ME 04901-5495
State's Attorney: TRACY DEVOLL
Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
Major Case Type: MISDEMEANOR (CLASS D,E)
Filing Date: 10/27/2003
Charge (s)
1 OPERATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE 10/25/2003 WATERVILLE
Seq 1197 29-A 2411(1) Class D
PELLETIER ° / WAT
Docket Events:
12/02/2003 Charge(s): 1
TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL EDI ON 12/02/2003 @ 22:01
FILING DOCUMENT - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 10/27/2003
MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 12/02/2003
12/05/2003 Charge(s): 1
TRANSFER - TRANSFER FOR JURY TRIAL RECVD BY COURT ON 12/04/2003
WATDC-CR-2003-02161
12/05/2003 BAIL BOND - $350.00 CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 12/04/2003
Bail Receipt Type: CR
Bail Amt: $350
Receipt Type: CK
Date Bailed: 10/25/2003 Prvdr Name: AIDAN T QUINN
Rtrn Name: AIDAN T QUINN
CHECK NO. 9985
Conditions of Bail:
12/08/2003 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 01/05/2004 @ 9:00
DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
12/31/2003 MOTION - MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 12/31/2003
TO FILE ADDITIONAL MOTIONS.
12/31/2003 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 12/31/2003
01/05/2004 MOTION - MOTION TO CONTINUE GRANTED ON 01/02/2004
DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE
Page 1 of 3 Printed on: 09/27/2004
01/05/2004
01/05/2004
03/17/2004
04/22/2004
04/22/2004
06/30/2004
06/30/2004
07/22/2004
07/26/2004
07/27/2004
08/03/2004
09/27/2004
09/27/2004
AIDAN T QUINN
AUGSC-CR- 2003-00486
DOCKET RECORD
COPY TO PARTIES/ COUNSEL
MOTION - MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME GRANTED ON 01/02/2004
DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE
COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
FILE ADDITIONAL MOTIONS BY JANUARY 6, 2004
HEARING -
MOTION TO SUPPRESS CONTINUED ON 01/02/2004
HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS
S KIRK STUDSTRUP , JUSTICE
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS
SCHEDULED FOR 04/20/2004 @ 9:00
CONTINUED ON 04/20/2004
HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 06/29/2004 @ 9:00
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS
DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE
Attorney: M MURPHY
DA: BRAD GRANT
Defendant Present in Court
HELD ON 06/29/2004
Reporter: KIMBERLY MCCULLOCH
STATE WITNESSES: STEVE PELLETIER
CASE STATUS - DECISION UNDER ADVISEMENT ON 06/29/2004
DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE
WRITTEN ORAL ARGUMENTS TO BE FILED; DEFENSE BY 7/9/04 AND STATE BY 7/19/04
LETTER - FROM PARTY FILED ON 07/22/2004
LETTER FROM MICHAELA MURPHY ESQ.
WRITTEN ARGUMENT BY JULY 23RD.
OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 07/26/2004
IN REGARDS TO TRANSCRIPT BEING PREPARED. WILL FILE HER
CLOSING ARGUMENT BY DEFENSE COUNSEL FILED
OTHER FILING - MEMORANDUM OF LAW FILED ON 07/27/2004
DA: BRAD GRANT
OTHER FILING - OTHER DOCUMENT FILED ON 08/03/2004
DEFENDANT'S REBUTTAL TO STATE'S WRITTEN ARGUMENT.
MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS DENIED ON 09/27/2004
DONALD H MARDEN , JUSTICE
COPY TO PARTIES/ COUNSEL
ORDER - COURT ORDER FILED ON 09/27/2004
GAVE TO JUSTICE MARDEN.
ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Exhibits
06/29/2004 DEFENDANT, Exhibit#1, PHOTO, Adm w/o obj on 06/29/2004.
06/29/2004 DEFENDANT, Exhibit#2, PHOTO, Adm w/o obj on 06/29/2004.
06/29/2004 DEFENDANT, Exhibit#3, PHOTO, Adm w/o obj on 06/29/2004.
06/23/2004 DEFENDANT, Exhibit#4, VIDEOTAPE OF BOOKING 3:07:15 TO 3:12:16, Adm w/o obj
on 06/29/2004.
06/29/2004 DEFENDANT, Exhibit#5, ENHANCED RECORDING OF ABOVE VIDEO, Adm w/o obj on 06/29/2004.
Page 2 of 3 Printed on: 09/27/2004
AIDAN T QUINN
AUGSC-CR-2003-00486
DOCKET RECORD
A’ TRUE COPY
ATTEST:
Clerk
Page 3 of 3 Printed on: 09/27/2004