State v. Swett

Decision Date15 April 1998
Citation709 A.2d 729
PartiesSTATE of Maine v. Anthony B. SWETT.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

R. Christopher Almy, District Attorney, C. Daniel Wood, James Diehl, Asst. Dist. Attys., Bangor, for the State.

Joseph M. Baldacci, Bangor, for defendant.

Before WATHEN, C.J., and CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, LIPEZ, and SAUFLEY, JJ.

WATHEN, Chief Justice.

¶1 Defendant Anthony Swett appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Kravchuk, J.) convicting him of operating under the influence of intoxicants in violation of 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2411 (1996). Defendant entered a conditional plea of guilty and appeals the District Court's (Bangor, Russell, J.) denial of his suppression motion. He argues that the court erred in finding that his arrest was supported by probable cause and that he was not subjected to custodial interrogation. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.

¶2 The relevant facts may be briefly stated as follows: Officer Martin of the Brewer Police Department was on patrol duty and received a radio message that the "State Police and the Bangor Police Department were looking for a black older model Mercury ... that was involved in a hit and run accident, [and] left the scene." Officers were asked to stop and hold the vehicle. Officer Munson stopped the vehicle as defendant drove into a parking lot. Officer Martin joined him moments later. Both officers approached the vehicle and requested defendant's driver's license. Officer Martin detected the smell of beer coming from the vehicle and saw a half-full twelve pack of beer in the back seat. Officer Martin informed defendant that he had been "stopped for another agency." Approximately three to five minutes later, two State Police officers arrived. After talking with Officer Martin, they interviewed defendant. Defendant admitted that he was the driver of the car, and, because the officers could smell alcohol on his breath, they administered field sobriety tests and a balloon kit test. In light of the information known to the officers and defendant's poor performance on the sobriety tests, defendant was arrested for operating under the influence.

¶3 Defendant's argument with regard to probable cause is without merit. The court did not err in finding that an ordinarily prudent and cautious police officer would believe that defendant committed a crime. See State v. Boylan, 665 A.2d 1016, 1018 (Me.1995).

¶4 He also contends that because he was detained until the State Police arrived, he was actually in police custody. From this premise, he argues that he was interrogated without appropriate warnings concerning his rights. A Miranda warning is required only if a defendant is in custody and subject to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State v. Akers
    • United States
    • Maine Superior Court
    • April 1, 2019
    ...statements made in the course of that interrogation are inadmissible at trial. State v. Bryant, 2014 ME 94, ¶ 8, 97 A.3d 595; State v. Swett, 1998 ME 76, ¶ 4, 709 A.2d 729; State v. Holloway, 2000 172, ¶ 13, 760 A.2d 223 (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966)). It is the State......
  • State v. Akers
    • United States
    • Maine Superior Court
    • April 1, 2019
    ...statements made in the course of that interrogation are inadmissible at trial. State v. Bryant, 2014 ME 94, ¶ 8, 97 A.3d 595; State v. Swett, 1998 ME 76, ¶ 4, 709 A.2d 729; State v. Holloway, 2000 ME 172, ¶ 13, 760 A.2d 223 (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 (1966)). It is the St......
  • State v. Wilcox
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • January 26, 2023
    ...it is central to an officer's task of ascertaining whether criminal conduct has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur, see State v. Swett , 1998 ME 76, ¶¶ 2, 4, 709 A.2d 729. The court thus found facts demonstrating a legitimate basis for the officer to seize Wilcox for investigatory......
  • Christian Fellowship v. Town of Limington
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • April 28, 2006
    ... ... the charitable exemption were to promote not only providing services in lieu of government services, but also "providing a service in which the state has a genuine interest." Report of the Joint Standing Committee on Taxation on the Statutory Review of the Property Tax Exemptions Contained in Title ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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