State v. Caron
| Decision Date | 24 December 1987 |
| Citation | 534 A.2d 978 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Wayne R. CARON. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Mary C. Tousignant, Dist. Atty., John O'Neil, Asst. Dist. Atty., Alfred, for the State.
James G. Boulos, Biddeford, for defendant.
Before NICHOLS, ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, SCOLNIK and CLIFFORD, JJ.
The defendant, Wayne Caron, appeals from a Superior Court, York County, judgment of conviction of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, 29 M.R.S.A. § 1312 (1978 & Supp.1987).
Caron's only contention on appeal is that the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence emanating from his vehicle being stopped by a Maine state trooper. We agree with Caron that the trooper lacked an articulable suspicion sufficient to justify the stop of Caron's vehicle and vacate the judgment.
Caron was stopped on Route 202 in Alfred in the early morning hours of November 15, 1986, after a Maine state trooper observed him straddle the center line of the road for 25 to 50 yards and then steer back into the proper lane of travel. There was no oncoming traffic nor vehicles passing Caron at the time of the straddling, nor any other operation that was in any way erratic or unusual. The stop led to the testing and later the arrest of Caron for operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Caron's motion to suppress the evidence stemming from the stop was denied in the District Court, and the case was transferred to the Superior Court where, after a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty. This appeal followed.
The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 5 of the Maine Constitution protect us from unreasonable intrusions of police officers and other government agents. State v. Griffin, 459 A.2d 1086, 1089 (Me.1983).
"In order to initiate an investigation involving brief detention short of a formal arrest, a law enforcement officer must act on the basis of 'specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.' " Griffin, 459 A.2d at 1089, quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The intrusion is justified if the officer has suspicion of "criminal conduct which has taken place, is occurring, or imminently will occur" and the suspicion is reasonably warranted, i.e., a person of "reasonable caution" would believe that criminal activity was afoot. State v. Garland, 482 A.2d 139, 142 (Me.1984); Griffin, 459 A.2d at 1089; Terry, 392 U.S. at 21-22, 88 S.Ct. at 1879-1880. The reasonable suspicion standard requires less than probable cause that a crime was being committed, but more than speculation or an unsubstantiated hunch. State v. Wentworth, 480 A.2d 751, 755 (Me.1984).
The finding of the motion judge that the stop was justified is reviewed only for clear error. State v. Chapman, 495 A.2d 314, 317 (Me.1985). We find such error here. The trooper testified that he suspected the operator to be under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rowe v. State
...characterized as "minor weaving," "is not so unreasonable as to give a legitimate suspicion of criminal activity."). See State v. Caron, 534 A.2d 978, 979 (Me.1987) ("A vehicle's brief, one time straddling of the center line of an undivided highway is a common occurrence and, in the absence......
-
State v. Wilcox
...An anonymous tip combined with observed circumstances can give rise to reasonable articulable suspicion. Compare State v. Caron , 534 A.2d 978, 979 (Me. 1987) (holding that the officer lacked reasonable articulable suspicion upon observing a "single, brief straddling of the center line of t......
-
United States v. Rivas
...831 So.2d 1241 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2002); People v. Leyendecker, 337 Ill.App.3d 678, 272 Ill.Dec. 543, 787 N.E.2d 358 (2003); State v. Caron, 534 A.2d 978 (Me.1987); United States v. Gregory, 79 F.3d 973 (10th Cir.1996); United States v. Ochoa, 4 F.Supp.2d 1007 (D.Kan.1998); State v. Tague, 67......
-
State v. Pratt
...to the contrary tend to involve isolated incidents of conduct or conduct less clearly related to impairment. See State v. Caron, 534 A.2d 978, 979 (Me.1987) (holding officer's observation of "brief, one time straddling of the center line of an undivided highway" did not justify stop (emphas......
-
Search and seizure
...were pronounced enough to provide the o൶cer with reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop. Maine State v. Caron (1987) 534 A.2d 978. Caron was stopped because he was straddling the center line of the road for 25 to 50 yards before steering back into his lane of travel. There wer......
-
Dui motions
...into the emergency lane. There were no other vehicles in the vicinity. The court held the stop was not proper.) • State v. Caron , 534 A.2d 978 (Me. 1987). (The defendant straddled the centerline for approximately 25 to 50 yards. This did not justify the tra൶c stop especially given the spar......