Summary
In Googoo the court found that the prosecution had presented no information whatsoever about the hospital test (other than the test result), including who took the sample, how it was taken, how it was transferred to the laboratory and what testing procedure was used.
Summary of this case from State v. GoucherOpinion
Submitted on Briefs April 30, 1987.
Decided May 6, 1987.
Appeal from the Superior Court, York County.
Mary Tousignant, Dist. Atty., David Gregory, Alfred, for plaintiff.
Michael Ayotte, Saco, for defendant.
Before McKUSICK, C.J., and ROBERTS, WATHEN, GLASSMAN, SCOLNIK and CLIFFORD, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION.
Utilizing the procedure set forth in Rule 11(a)(2) of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure, Gordon Googoo appeals from a judgment entered in the Superior Court (York County) on his conditional pleas of guilty to violations of 29 M.R.S.A. § 2298 (Supp. 1986) (habitual offender) (Class C) and 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1107 (1983) (possession of a schedule Y drug) (Class E). He contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress because the officer who arrested him lacked a reasonable, articulable basis to stop him. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the officer did indeed have a reasonable, articulable basis to stop the defendant. See State v. Collins, 479 A.2d 344, 346 (Me. 1984).
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed.
All concurring.