State of Maine v. Clardy

'•

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET
KENNEBEC, SS. AUGUSTA
DOCKET NO. CR-19-214

STATE OF MAINE

V. DECISION ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

WILLIAM L. CLARDY

INTRODUCTION
Before the court is the Defendant's Motion to Suppress Stop dated April 2,
2019. Hearing on the motion was held on August 6, 2019, at which the court
received the testimony of Trooper Hunter Belanger. The court also admitted into
evidence, without objection, Exhibit 1 being the video from Trooper Belanger's
cruiser that recorded the stop and the minutes leading up to it, when the trooper
began following Mr. Clardy's vehicle.
The court has viewed Exhibit 1 multiple times. Based on the evidence
presented at the hearing, the court makes the following factual findings.
FACTS
On December 16, 2018, at approximately midnight, Trooper Belanger was on
patrol and stopped along Water Street in Hallowell in his marked cruiser. He saw
the Defendant's (Clardy's) vehicle pull out of the waterfront parking lot, tum right
and head towards Augusta. Nothing about the way the vehicle pulled out caused
Trooper Belanger to be suspicious, but he was aware that there are establishments
along Water Street that offer alcoholic beverages for sale at that hour. Exhibit 1, the
cruiser camera video, shows Trooper Belanger pulling out and heading in the
direction of the Clardy vehicle. At approximately 59 seconds into the video,
Clardy's vehicle can be seen drifting to the left and "touching" the yellow center
line. An instant later, Clardy's vehicle "cuts" back into its lane, and the headlights
of two on-coming vehicles can be seen approaching.
Trooper Belanger can be heard describing what he saw as he was observing
it: "vehicle just drifts over, hits the yellow line, and cuts back into the lane." In the
court's view, while the touching of the yellow center line and the "jerk" back to the
right into the travel lane, were slight and quick, they were clearly observable. The
court found Trooper Belanger credible when he explained how his actual vision of
an incident can be better than what can be observed on the video.
Another 30 seconds later or so later, the trooper saw Clardy's vehicle cross
over the double yellow lines of a turning lane. This incident is very clearly seen on
Exhibit 1, and involved both left tires crossing over and into the turning lane. At
that point, Trooper Belanger initiated a stop of Clardy's vehicle, which is the subject
of this motion to suppress.
DISCUSSION
Clardy contends that Trooper Belanger's stop of his vehicle was illegal,
because it was not supported by any reasonable and articulable suspicion. In
particular, Clardy cites State v. Caron, 534 A.2d 978 (Me. 1987), as support for his
claim that the trooper's observation of a slight touching of the yellow center line did
not constitute reasonable, articulable suspicion.
The Law Court has recently reaffirmed that "[a] stop is justified when an
officer's assessment of the existence of specific and articulable facts indicating a
possible violation of law or a public safety risk is objectively reasonable considering
the totality of the circumstances." State v. Simmons, 2016 ME ME 91, , 9, quoting
State v. Connor, 2009 ME 91, , 10, 977 A.2d 1003. "[T]he threshold for
demonstrating an objectively reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a vehicle stop

2
is low . . . The suspicion need only be more than a speculation or an
unsubstantiated hunch." State v. LaForge, 2012 ME 65, ~ 10, 43 A.3d 961. "Safety
reasons alone can be sufficient if they are based upon 'specific and articulable facts'"
State v. Pinkham, 565 A.2d 318,319 (Me. 1989). See State v. Fuller, 556 A.2d 224
(Me. 1989) (blinking headlights which officer believed were possibly defective
justified stop).
The Caron case involved a single straddle of the center line. The Court made
a point that there were no oncoming vehicles. Here, the drifting of Clardy's vehicle
did coincide with the approach of oncoming traffic. One may infer that Clardy
himself recognized a potential safety concern as evidenced by his clearly observable
"cut" or "jerk" back into his travel lane. The concern is also evidenced by Trooper
Belanger' s verbal description of what he saw as he was seeing it. A short time later,
Clardy's vehicle crossed the double yellow lines of a turning lane, before moving
back into its own lane of travel.
Based on these incidents, and considering the time of night, Trooper Belanger
had an objectively reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that Clardy's
operation of the vehicle constituted lane violations and posed a potential public
safety risk. See, e.g., State v. Cusack, 649 A.2d 16, 18-19 (Me. 1994); State v.
Burnham, 610 A.2d 733, 735 (Me. 1992).
The Defendant's motion to suppress is DENIED.

Dated: August 19, 2019 \

Justice, Superior Cou

Entered on the docket '3-;;J.o- /Cl
3