Opinion
SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-11-524
11-08-2011
STATE OF MAINE v. MEGAN COX, Defendant
STATE OF MAINE
KENNEBEC, ss
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
The defendant moves to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the stop of her vehicle. The defendant argues that the officer lacked a reasonable articulable suspicion to have the defendant perform field sobriety tests. For the following reasons, the motion is denied.
FINDINGS
Maine State Police Trooper Eric Verhille has been a member of the Maine State Police since May 2007. On April 30, 2011 at 12:05 a.m., he was on routine patrol and followed a Subaru station wagon for two or three minutes. A video recording was made of the station wagon as Trooper Verhille followed the vehicle.
Trooper Verhille testified, and the video confirms, that the vehicle veered to the centerline and returned to the right several times. The vehicle was riding the centerline as vehicles approached from the opposite direction. On one occasion, the entire tire of the defendant's vehicle was on the yellow line. Trooper Verhille activated his emergency lights to stop the vehicle. Trooper Verhille was concerned about the operation he had observed and about a potential accident, especially because Route 9 in the Chelsea - Randolph area has a series of small hills and one partial S turn. Trooper Verhille was also concerned about the possibility the operator was experiencing medical problems. The vehicle pulled over and stopped.
Trooper Verhille approached the driver's side door and obtained a license from the operator, Megan Cox. Trooper Verhille asked if everything was all right. The defendant responded that it was past her bedtime, she was a student, owned a small business in Gardiner, had been with friends, and was tired. Trooper Verhille described the defendant's demeanor as "giddy," as though she did not appreciate the seriousness of the situation. The video confirms that she laughed often during her conversation with Trooper Verhille.
Trooper Verhille asked whether the defendant had had anything to drink. She first responded that she had one glass of wine at 7:30. Trooper Verhille asked again how many drinks she had and the defendant responded she had two glasses of wine. The defendant had no slurred speech, no odor of intoxicating beverage, no bloodshot or glassy eyes, no manual dexterity problems, and no mental acuity problems. She did not give the trooper all of the correct documents, however, initially.
Trooper Verhille concluded that the defendant was impaired by alcohol based on her operation and admission she had consumed alcohol. He requested that she exit the vehicle and conducted standard field sobriety tests.
Trooper Verhille conducted an HGN test while the defendant was seated in her vehicle. The State stipulated that conducting this test in a vehicle is not a proper administration of the test and the test should be given no weight by the court.
CONCLUSIONS
Field Sobriety Tests
Trooper Verhille had "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts," warranted the administration of field sobriety tests. State v. Wood, 662 A.2d 919, 920 (Me. 1995) (quoting State v. Dulac, 600 A.2d 1121, 1122 (Me. 1991)); State v. Little, 468 A.2d 615, 617-18 (Me. 1983). The defendant's operation of her vehicle, her admission to drinking alcohol and changing the amount consumed upon further inquiry, and her failure to give all documents to Trooper Verhille when first requested provided the required basis to administer the field sobriety tests.
The entry is
The Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.
/s/_________
Nancy Mills
Justice, Superior Court
Date: November 8, 2011