State v. Croteau

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
Citation2022 ME 22
Docket NumberPen-21-271
PartiesSTATE OF MAINE v. BRENT CROTEAU
Decision Date05 April 2022

2022 ME 22

STATE OF MAINE
v.
BRENT CROTEAU

No. Pen-21-271

Supreme Court of Maine

April 5, 2022


Argued: March 9, 2022

Marianne Lynch, District Attorney, Danielle Pocock, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Lori Renzullo, Stud. Atty. (orally), Prosecutorial District V, Bangor, for appellant State of Maine

David J. Bobrow, Esq. (orally), Bedard and Bobrow, PC, Eliot, for appellee Brent Croteau

Panel: STANFILL, C.J., and MEAD, JABAR, HUMPHREY, HORTON, and CONNORS, JJ.[*]

HUMPHREY, J.

[¶1] The State of Maine appeals from an order of the trial court (Penobscot County, Budd, J.) suppressing the blood test results of Brent Croteau in the State's prosecution of Croteau for a charge of operating under the influence (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(A), (5) (2021). The State contends that the court erred in concluding that the blood sample drawn from Croteau for testing was obtained without his voluntary consent. We vacate the judgment and remand for the court to deny Croteau's motion to suppress.

1

I. BACKGROUND

[¶2] The following facts are drawn from the court's findings of fact in its suppression order and its order amending those findings of fact. The findings are supported by competent evidence admitted at the suppression hearing. See State v. Cooper, 2017 ME 4, ¶ 2, 9, 153 A.3d 759.

[¶3] Brent Croteau was driving southbound on Interstate 95 near Carmel on the evening of February 14, 2020. His vehicle left the highway and came to rest in a ditch near the tree line, with the vehicle's taillights visible from the highway. An off-duty state trooper, who was not wearing a uniform, was driving by in his private vehicle and stopped to see if he could assist with the situation.

[¶4] The trooper found Croteau sitting on the embankment between the road and the tree line. The trooper identified himself as an off-duty state trooper. He asked Croteau if he was injured and if there had been other passengers in the vehicle. Croteau answered, "I don't know," to each question.

[¶5] The trooper asked what had happened, and Croteau asked, "[D]o you want me to be honest?" The trooper responded affirmatively, and Croteau said that he had taken a lot of his medications and wanted to kill himself.

2

Croteau listened to all questions posed to him, answered appropriately, and followed all instructions carefully.

[¶6] The trooper contacted the police dispatch center and requested emergency services. Croteau remained seated until an ambulance arrived, and the trooper helped him into the ambulance.

[¶7] An on-duty state trooper in uniform soon arrived in a marked State Police cruiser. That trooper observed straight tire tracks in the snow leading off the road to the trees. A pill bottle was found in Croteau's car, which was consistent with Croteau's statement that he had ingested large amounts of his medications.

[¶8] The on-duty trooper entered the ambulance briefly and then exited, and Croteau was taken to the hospital for treatment without any roadside sobriety testing. The on-duty trooper then went to the hospital, where he interviewed Croteau and recorded their conversation. That trooper identified himself as the investigating trooper and advised Croteau of his Miranda[1] rights. The trooper spoke at a measured pace and took care to obtain "yes" responses to confirm Croteau's understanding of his rights.

3

[¶9] Croteau agreed to speak with the trooper and explained coherently that he had taken a total of sixty pills between 7:00 and 9:00 p.m. and had then driven on the Interstate. While the trooper and Croteau spoke, medical personnel were asking Croteau questions to determine his immediate physical health. They were checking his vital signs and preparing him for an echocardiogram (EKG). A nurse indicated that she was going to "steal a little bit more blood."

[¶10] Hospital staff continued to communicate with Croteau about his medical care, and the trooper told Croteau that he had everything he needed for the time being, acknowledging that Croteau had "a lot going on with the hospital here." The trooper said that he would call in a couple of days and told Croteau that he hoped he would feel better.

[¶11] The trooper left momentarily but then returned to ask if Croteau would be willing to submit to a blood test to determine whether he had intoxicants in his system. Specifically, the following exchange occurred:

Trooper: Hey Brent. Just real quick. Would you be willing to provide some blood for me?
Croteau: Sure.
Trooper: Okay. So it would be-the reason for the blood draw would be-I'm looking for evidence of impairment.
4
Croteau: I told you I was on my ... medication. So like-I have nothing to hide.
Trooper: Okay. All right. So I'll get that paperwork and stuff, and I'll let the nurse know and we'll do that, okay?
Croteau: Yup. Cool.

About twenty minutes later, the trooper returned with a test kit, and Croteau signed a consent form for sample collection before his blood was drawn. The trooper did not read the consent form to Croteau before Croteau signed it.

[¶12] The trooper did not provide Croteau with a form explaining either his statutory duty to submit to testing or his option to refuse to submit to testing and bear the statutory consequences of refusal, which may include license suspension, admissibility of the refusal to consent to testing at a trial for operating under the influence, and sentencing consequences if convicted.[2] See 29-A M.R.S. § 2521(3) (2021).

5

[¶13] On April 11, 2020, the State charged Croteau by criminal complaint with operating under the influence (Class D), 29-A M.R.S. § 2411(1-A)(A), (5). Croteau pleaded not guilty and moved to suppress the results of his blood test.[3] The court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion on July 16, 2021. The court received testimony from the off-duty and on-duty troopers and admitted in evidence the signed consent form for sample collection, the on-duty trooper's dashboard camera recording, and the on-duty trooper's recorded conversations with Croteau.

[¶14] The court granted the motion to suppress, reasoning that Croteau's blood was obtained through inadvertent misrepresentation because he was never advised of his right not to submit to the test. The court found that the trooper's request for a blood sample "was delivered in passing, almost as an 'oh by the way'-type afterthought," which did not allow Croteau time to consider and reflect on the request. The court found that Croteau was distracted by

6

medical personnel and preparation for the EKG, had been told by a nurse that his blood was going to be drawn, and did not have time to reflect on his decision. The court concluded that the blood draw was a result of mere acquiescence to the trooper's authority.

[¶15] The State moved for the court to amend its findings. Croteau filed an "answer" to the State's motion in which he requested additional findings as well. The court amended its findings to indicate that (1) the nurse stated that she was going to draw blood over a minute before the trooper requested another blood draw for chemical testing and (2) about twenty minutes passed between Croteau's oral consent and his signature of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT