State v. Fuller
| Citation | 556 A.2d 224 |
| Parties | STATE of Maine v. Gardner W. FULLER. |
| Decision Date | 03 April 1989 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
William R. Anderson, Dist. Atty., Patricia Worth, Asst. Dist. Atty., Belfast, for plaintiff.
David M. Melesky, Winterport, for defendant.
Gardner W. Fuller appeals his conviction of operating after revocation in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 2298 (Class C) (Supp.1988) entered on a conditional guilty plea after the Superior Court (Waldo County; Beaulieu, J.) denied his Motion to Suppress.
In order to initiate an investigatory stop, 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." State v. Griffin, 459 A.2d 1086, 1089 (Me.1983). We will not disturb the trial court's finding that the intrusion was reasonably warranted unless the record on appeal establishes that the finding is clearly erroneous. State v. LaPlante, 534 A.2d 959, 962 (Me.1987). In the present case, Officer Lindall testified that Fuller's car approached him at approximately 6:30 p.m. on October 9, 1987 with its headlights blinking on and off four or five times within a quarter of a mile. Lindall, thinking the headlights were possibly defective, stopped Fuller to advise him to fix the headlights before getting stranded in the dark. Viewing these facts in their totality, and recognizing that the presiding justice alone passes upon the credibility and weight of the testimony and decides what inferences and deductions can reasonably be drawn therefrom, we cannot say that the Superior Court clearly erred in finding that Officer Lindall reasonably suspected that Fuller may have been in trouble. See LaPlante, 534 A.2d at 962 ().
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
All concurring.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Smigliano
...furnished sufficient reason to justify stop for purely safety purposes to advise defendant of his misuse; citing Cady ); State v. Fuller, 556 A.2d 224 (Me.1989) (officer was justified in stopping defendant's motor vehicle to advise him "to fix the headlights before getting stranded in the d......
-
State v. Marshall, 890121-CA
...speeding); State v. Puig, 112 Ariz. 519, 544 P.2d 201, 202 (1975) (suspicion of defective turn signals justified stop); State v. Fuller, 556 A.2d 224, 224 (Me.1989) (stop justified when blinking headlights led officer to stop vehicle for safety reasons).4 We do not analyze this issue under ......
-
State v. Kurth
...of his public safety duties when the vehicle was weaving somewhat on the highway and the left rear tire was “bouncing”); State v. Fuller, 556 A.2d 224, 224 (Me.1989) (upholding a stop of a moving motor vehicle to advise the driver “to fix the headlights before getting stranded in the dark” ......
-
State v. Tucker
...stop. Safety reasons alone may justify the stop, if the safety reasons are based upon specific and articulable facts. State v. Fuller, 556 A.2d 224 (Me.1989)." The question then becomes whether the stop in this case was based upon specific and articulable facts. The defendant argues that su......