upholding stop as justified by reasonable articulable suspicion where officer realized after stop that driver was not who he thought he was
How later courts described this case
- upholding stop as justified by reasonable articulable suspicion where officer realized after stop that driver was not who he thought he was
- upholding stop where officer's purpose was to determine whether driver was one of several individuals with outstanding warrants who showed up in license plate check conducted on patrol car computer
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
LCOURT
UNIFIED CRlMlN A
poRTLAND ,
STATE OF MAINE ket No. CR-12-7843. f ..,
:z. ···~1 ·J 1
cUMBERLAND, ss. Doc
G M K (v.ff) -
A '1J / .(} ~~
4
)
STATE OF MAINE )
ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS
)
)
v.
)
)
BRENTON H. DICKSON )
21
A testimonial hearing was held on Defendant's Motion to Suppress on March •
2013. Defendant appeared, represented by Attorney Robert Andrews. The State was
represented by Assistant District Attorney William Barry·
Defendant seeks to suppress evidence arising from what he contends was an
unconstitutional stop of the vehicle he was driving. Defendant ar~ues that there ~as no
reasonable articulable suspicion justifying the stop becaus~ the pohce officer w,~s ?1d not
have a reasonable articulable suspicion and was proceedmg on a theory of mistaken
identity" when he pulled the vehicle over.
The facts leading up to the stop are undisputed. Officer Garrett Strout of the
Scarborough Police Department testified that on the evening ofNove~ber 9, 2012 ~e was
parked on the side of Route 22 observing passing traffic and conductmg random hcense
plate checks on his patrol car's computer. In running the license plate numbers of the car
Defendant was driving, Officer Strout learned that the vehicle was registered to a female,
and that the Scarborough Police Department had recently had contact with a previous
male driver of the vehicle. That male individual, identified on the computer as one Kevin
Prescott, was shown to have outstanding warrants, active bail conditions, and a
suspended license. The description provided for Kevin Prescott stated that he was a white
male, between the ages of 30 and 40, with brown hair and a thin build.
Officer Strout testified that when the car passed him he had observed the driver,
who appeared to be a white male matching the description of the individual who had been
previously linked with the vehicle and who had outstanding warrants for his arrest.
Believing that the driver on November 9 was that same individual, Officer Strout pulled
the vehicle over. After the stop, it became apparent that the current driver was not Kevin
Prescott, the male with the active warrants, but Brenton Dickson, the Defendant.
The court is not persuaded by Defendant's argument that the facts of this matter
distinguish this stop from those upheld in State v. McDonald, 201 0 ME 102, State v.
Tozier, 2006 ME 105, State v. Huether, 2000 ME 59, State v. Eklund, 2000 ME 175 and
Hurtado v. State, 881 S.W.2d 738 (Tx. 1994). On the contrary, those cases make clear
that the governing standard requires that the officer at the time of a motorist stop made
the stop for a reason that was both reasonable and articulable: that the suspicion be based
"on more than speculation or an unsubstantiated hunch." That the officer's reasoning
subsequently turns out to be mistaken does not render the stop invalid. See, e.g., Reuther,
748 A.2d at 995 (upholding stop as justified by reasonable articulable suspicion where
officer realized after stop that driver was not who he thought he was); State v. Hill, 606
A.2d 793, 795 (upholding stop even though reason for stop turned out to be mistaken).
The Texas case cited by Defendant likewise suggests that suppression here is not
warranted. See Hurtado, 881 S.W.2d at 742 (upholding stop where officer's purpose was
to determine whether driver was one of several individuals with outstanding warrants
who showed up in license plate check conducted on patrol car computer)~ That Hurtado
involved dealer's plates does not render its reasoning distinguishable. Defendant argues
that the reasonableness of the arresting officer's suspicions is undermined by the
difference in hair color between Kevin Prescott and Defendant. While Defendant's
driver's license lists his hair color as blond or strawberry, and while he may well have
had hair of such color at another time, having had the opportunity to observe Defendant
in court, it is apparent that his hair color can reasonably be regarded as brown.
Accordingly, because Officer Strout had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that
the driver was someone with a suspended license and outstanding warrants, the stop was
constitutional and there are no grounds for Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
It is therefore hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress 1s
DENIED.
DATED: _. . . .,3'-F-~- '-+'\. 1 .£:?_ __
2
STATE 0F MAINE CRIMINAL DOCKET
vs CUMBERLAND, ss.
BRENTON H DICKSON, JR Docket No CUMCD-CR-2012-07843
11 DAVID DR
SCARBOROUGH ME 04074 DOCKET RECORD
DOB: 07/23/1967
Attorney: ROBERT ANDREWS State's Attorney: STEPHANIE ANDERSON
ROBERT ANDREWS ESQ
PO BOX 17621
PORTLAND ME 04112
APPOINTED 12/26/2012
Charge(s)
1 OPERATE WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED/REVOKED- 11/09/2012 SCARBOROUGH
OUI, PRIOR
Seq 9890 29-A 2412-A(1-A) (C) Class E
STROUT I SCA
Docket Events:
11/19/2012 FILING DOCUMENT - CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 11/13/2012
11/19/2012 Charge (s) : 1
HEARING- ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 12/26/2012 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. 1
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
11/19/2012 BAIL BOND - $100.00 CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 11/13/2012
Bail Receipt Type: CR
Bail Amt: $100
Receipt Type: CK
Date Bailed: 11/10/2012 Prvdr Name: KATE GRINDEL
Rtrn Name: KATE GRINDEL
10/15/80 682
12/20/2012 Charge(s): 1
SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - COMPLAINT FILED ON 12/19/2012
12/28/2012 Charge(s): 1
HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 12/26/2012 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 1
MARY KELLY , JUDGE
DA: ANGELA CANNON
DEFENDANT INFORMED OF CHARGES. 21 DAYS TO FILE MOTIONS TAPE 4587
12/28/2012 Charge(s): 1
PLEA- NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 12/26/2012 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. 1
MARY KELLY , JUDGE
DA : ANGELA CANNON
TAPE 4587
12/28/2012 Charge (s): 1
HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 02/19/2013 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 7
12/28/2012 Charge(s): 1
TRIAL - JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 04/08/2013 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 11
CR 200 Page 1 of 2 Printed on: 03/27/2013
BRENTON H DICKSON, JR
CUMCD-CR-2012-07843
DOCKET RECORD
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
12/28/2012 Charge (s) : 1
MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL GRANTED ON 12/26/2012 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 1
MARY KELLY , JUDGE
COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
12/28/2012 Party(s): BRENTON H DICKSON JR
ATTORNEY - APPOINTED ORDERED ON 12/26/2012
Attorney: ROBERT ANDREWS
02/20/2013 Charge (s): 1
HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 02/19/2013
RICHARD MULHERN , JUDGE
Attorney: ROBERT ANDREWS
DA: WILLIAM BARRY
OFFER MADE, MOTION TO SUPRESS TO BE FILED
02/21/2013 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 02/20/2013
02/21/2013 Charge (s) : 1
HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 03/21/2013 at 01:00p.m. in Room No. 1
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
02/21/2013 Charge (s): 1
HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ON 02/21/2013
03/22/2013 Charge (s) : 1
HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS HELD ON 03/21/2013
MARY KELLY ' JUDGE
Attorney: ROBERT ANDREWS
DA: WILLIAM BARRY
Defendant Present in Court
TAPE 4828 UNDER
ADVISEMENT BY J. KELLY
03/27/2013 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS DENIED ON 03/27/2013
MARY KELLY , JUDGE
COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
03/27/2013 ORDER - COURT ORDER FILED ON 03/27/2013
ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED. COPIES SENT TO
ALL PARTIES 3-27-13.
A TRUE COPY
ATTEST:
Clerk
CR 200 Page 2 of 2 Printed on: 03/27/2013