# State of Maine v. Brown

> Superior Court of Maine · December 18, 2012

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809943

## Case

- **Court:** Superior Court of Maine
- **Decided:** December 18, 2012
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** E. Paul Eggert
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809943

## Opinion text

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss. CRIMINAL ACTION
go~tet_~u ~2~~~~-12~~~o:7

ORDER ON
v. MOTION TO SUPPRESS

JONATHAN A. BROWN

On July 13, 2012 into July 14, 2012, the Westbrook Police Department operated a
sobriety checkpoint on Route 25 in downtown Westbrook. The sobriety checkpoint was
organized by Captain Thomas Roth of the Westbrook Police Department who arranged
for the checkpoint to be authorized by the Chief of Police. Twelve officers were
assigned to participate in the sobriety checkpoint under the supervision of Captain
Roth. The officers had a brief meeting prior to setting up the sobriety checkpoint and
were briefed on the expectations for them. On June 29, 2012, a press release was sent to
the various media outlets in the Cumberland County area notifying them that increased
impaired drivers patrols and sobriety checkpoints would be held in the City of
Westbrook during the summer. On the day in questions, the Westbrook Police
Department posted notice of the sobriety checkpoint that day on its Facebook page.
During the operation of the sobriety checkpoint, the officers were instructed to conduct
quick stops of motorists to inquire if they had anything to drink and to make
observations about the condition of their eyes, the slurring of speech, any odor of
alcohol coming from the vehicle, and the operation of the vehicle up to the checkpoint
among other things. The roadblock as it was conducted on that evening was reasonable
under the constitutional standards set forth in State v. Kent, 2011 ME 42.

At around 2:00 a.m. on July 17, 2012, Officer Burgess of the Westbrook Police
Department was the officer in charge of checking motorists at the sobriety checkpoint.
Officer Burgess was standing near the stop line with two other officers in the area. A
lone car began to approach the sobriety checkpoint and was traveling at around 20
MPH and Officer Burgess became concerned that the driver was not going to stop at the
checkpoint line. Officer Burgess and the other two officers began to wave flashlights
and holler at the driver to stop. The driver failed to stop at the designated line and
continued through the checkpoint by a car length. Officer Burgess went up to the car
and asked the driver if he had anything to drink. The driver turned his face away from
the officer at the window and stated that he had not. Based upon the failure to stop at
the checkpoint and averting his face from the officer, the driver was asked to proceed to
the observation area for further screening.

The Defendant has filed a motion to suppress alleging that the officer lacked articulable
suspicion to require him to remain and go the secondary observation area and that
there was a lack of probable cause to detain him for further testing for levels of blood
alcohol in his system. The court finds that the driver's inability to stop his vehicle as
required by the sobriety checkpoint in and of itself is sufficient to indicate an inability to
control the vehicle and some impairment for some reason. In addition to that factor, the
officer was also able to observe the evasiveness of the operator of the vehicle by turning
his head away so that his breath could not be smelled. The defendant's evasive action
adds to the reasonable suspicion that allows the officer to require the Defendant to
proceed to the secondary are for further evaluation. At the secondary area, the officer
learned that the operator was Jonathan Brown who was 20 years of age. The officer
observed glassy bloodshot eyes, knew that the operator was under 21 years of age, and
further observed that the operator had exhibited six clues during the HGN 1 test and had
swayed while doing the test. At that point, the officer clearly had probable cause to
think that the Defendant was a person under 21 who was operating with any amount of
alcohol in his system.

Defendant's motion to suppress is denied.

DATED: December 18, 2012
E. Paul~
Maine District Court

1
While the HGN test may result in clues for reasons other than alcohol impairment, alcohol
impairment is one ofthe main causes ofHGN clues and is sufficient, along with the other
indicators that exist in this case, to allow an officer to proceed to more definitive testing such as
a breath or blood test.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10809943. Public record. Not legal advice.