State of Maine v. Allen

STATE OF MAINE CRIMINAL COURT Jq-zi~I
CUMBERLAND, ss DOCKET NO CR- r8- 2 0l ~

STATE OF MAINE
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S
V. MOTION TO SUPRESS

DANA ALLEN REC'D CUMB GlERKS OF
DEC 9 '19 F'Mc:t 12

This matter came before the court on November 7, 2019 for
hearing on Defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant was present and
represented by Attorney Deborah Munson Feagans, Esquire. The State
was represented by student attorney Rose Guimaraes and Assistant
District Attorney William Barry, Esquire.
At the onset of the hearing, Defendant clarified the issues raised by
his motion to suppress. Specifically, Defendant challenges whether the
officer has sufficient probable cause to arrest Defendant 1 , and whether
the State violated Defendant's federal and state rights under Miranda v.
Arizona, 348 U.S. 436 (1966) and its progeny. The court heard the
testimony of Patrol Sergeant Angela Porter of the Maine State Police.
After hearing, and having considered all of the evidence and arguments
presented, the court makes the following Findings of Fact and
Conclusions of Law upon which the Order set forth below is based:
Angela Porter is a patrol sergeant with the Maine State Police a
position that she has held for three years. Prior to that she worked as a
Trooper with the Maine State Police as well as being employed as an
officer with the South Portland Police Department from 2000 to 2003 .
Sgt. Porter was trained at the Maine Criminal Justice Academy and holds
certification for standardized field sobriety testing. In addition to the

1 Defendant did not challenge whether there was sufficient reasonable,
articulable suspicion to stop or detain Defendant's vehicle or to request that he
perform field sobriety tests .

~ntered on the Docket: 1a . CJ ·I~ 1
'
\

basic training course, Sgt. Porter has received specialized training in
Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE). The ARIDE
training focuses on advanced training regarding impairment by drugs.
On February 15, 2019 Sgt. Porter was working, she was in an
unmarked cruiser equipped with low lights, and in full uniform. At
approximately 11:02 pm, Sgt. Porter, who was at Saco Police Department
on another matter, learned from dispatch of an accident on the Maine
Turnpike at mile 42 in Scarborough. The accident occurred in the south
bound direction of travel and involved a Maine Turnpike plow truck and
an SUV which had reportedly left the area. Officers were dispatched to
be on the lookout for the suspected SUV.
Approximately 20 minutes after the initial report was received, Sgt.
Porter learned that Saco officers had located the SUV at the Saco "park
and ride," and were requesting a trooper.2 Sgt. Porter responded to the
location of the SUV arriving "a couple" minutes after receiving the
request. Upon her arrival, Sgt. Porter was informed by the Saco officers
that when they first arrived, they observed a male outside of the vehicle
speaking on his cell phone. The male was seen by the medics with the
rescue at the park and ride. When Sgt. Porter first arrived the male was
inside the rescue unit. The Saco officers informed Sgt. Porter that they
had not spoken with the operator prior to his involvement with rescue.
Sgt. Porter also learned from other troopers who spoke with the plow
operator, that the accident occurred when the SUV approached the back
of the plow truck which was treating the road in the inside travel lane of
the turnpike. The SUV struck the rear right (passenger) side area of the
plow truck then pulled into the middle lane, and continued on passed
the truck, driving off.

2Since the accident occurred on the Maine State Turnpike, the Maine State
Police had initiated the call, and were handling the accident.

2
'
\

Sgt. Porter observed that the SUV had substantial damage to the
driver's side front of the vehicle, in particular where the windshield and
driver's side window connected to the vehicle. She also observed broken
glass and crush damage consistent with the vehicle having been involved
in an accident. Sgt. Porter noted that the SUV matched the description
she had received from dispatch of a silver or tari SUV as reported from
the accident.
Sgt. Porter then made contact with the male who she identified as
Defendant in the rescue unit. Defendant did not have his license on his
person, but informed her it was inside the vehicle above the driver's side
visor. Sgt. Porter was not able to open the driver's side door to retrieve
the license due to the damage to the vehicle. Defendant told Sgt. Porter
his name and date of birth, and acknowledged that the vehicle belonged
to him and he was the registered owner. Sgt. Porter began speaking with
Defendant concerning the accident report.
Defendant was wearing shorts and a hooded sweatshirt. While
speaking to Defendant, Sgt. Porter noted that Defendant had slurred
speech, red eyes, and some abrasions on his knees. She noted that his
left knee had more visible injury than the right. When Sgt. Porter asked
Defendant if she could look to see if he had any visible seat belt
abrasions, he said that he was not wearing his seat belt but that she
could look. In lifting Defendant's sweatshirt, Sgt. Porter observed paint
chips on Defendant's neck which were a similar color to the vehicle. Sgt.
Porter also observed loose pieces of glass on, and in the front pocket of,
his sweatshirt.
Defendant said that he was the passenger in the vehicle, and not
the driver at the time of the accident and that he exited the vehicle on
the passenger side door. Sgt. Porter did not observe any glass or paint
chips on the passenger side of the vehicle, only in the driver's side,
mostly near the driver's side door. Sgt. Porter did observe a bag of food
on the passenger seat in the SUV. Defendant also said that he did not

3
(

know the name of the person who was driving or how to get in touch with
the driver as he had just met the person that evening.
When asked if he had had anything to drink, Defendant said that
he had consumed 4 Busch beers, and stopped drinking around 10:00
pm. When asked, Defendant informed the officer that he took
medication for high blood pressure and diabetes. Sgt. Porter asked
rescue to check Defendant's blood sugar to rule out any diabetes related
issue at the time. At this point Sgt. Porter requested Defendant to
perform field sobriety test.
Defendant, who was still in the rescue, was seated in a captain's
style chair at the time of the test and was wearing glasses. Prior to
starting the test, Sgt. Porter observed Defendant's eyes noting equal
pupil size and that Defendant's eyes tracked. The test was then
explained to Defendant. Defendant performed the test, and Sgt. Porter
noted 6 of 6 possible clues (3 in each eye). After completing the HGN
test, Sgt. Porter performed a second eye test, lack of convergence.
Although she noted some bouncing of Defendant's eyes, she did not
determine the clues sufficient for a determination on this test, which is
generally used for drug related impairment determinations.
Sgt. Porter did not have Defendant perform any other field sobriety
tests due to the accident and his physical condition. Sgt. Porter again
asked for any information about the driver but he was unable to provide
any information, including a first or last name. Sgt. Porter asked if
Defendant wanted to go to the hospital to be fully evaluated, and he said
that he did. Sgt. Porter followed rescue to the hospital. Once in
Defendant's room at the hospital, Sgt. Porter noted the odor of alcohol
coming from Defendant and she noted abrasions on his left arm. Sgt.
Porter requested that Defendant submit to a blood draw, which he
consented to.
In order to justify an arrest, an officer must have probable cause to
believe the Defendant's senses were "affected to the slightest degree, or to

4
any extent," by the alcohol consumed. State v. Webster, 2000 ME 115,
,r7, 754 A.2d 976, 978. See also State v. Morrison, 2015 ME 153.
"Probable cause to arrest exists whenever facts and circumstances within
the knowledge of the police and of which there was reasonably
trustworthy information would warrant a prudent and cautious person to
believe that the arrestee had committed the crime." Morrison, 2015 ME
153, at ,rs. In this case, Sgt. Porter had information of the accident on
the turnpike and that the vehicle did not stop after striking the moving
plow truck. The SUV was located in an area park and ride lot, showing
signs of a new or fresh accident, including having broken glass and paint
chips in the vehicle. Glass and paint chips were also found on
Defendant who admitted to being in the vehicle which struck the plow
truck. Defendant, who was the registered owner of the vehicle, and who
told Sgt. Porter that the vehicle belonged to him, did not admit, however,
that he was the driver. Defendant was not able to provide any
information regarding who the driver was, including not being able to
give a first name or any identifying information. Sgt. Porter noted that
Defendant's eyes were red and he had slurred speech. She also noted
that Defendant had abrasions on his knees, more on his left leg than his
right, which was consistent with a strike to the driver's side of the
vehicle, and consistent with the damage noted to the vehicle itself.
Defendant acknowledged that he had consumed four beers, stopping an
hour earlier than the accident. Sgt. Porter noted 6 of 6 clues on the HGN
test. She also noted the odor of alcohol once she was with Defendant at
the hospital. This evidence is sufficient to establish probable cause.
Next Defendant argues that his statements should be suppressed
as they were made without the benefit of Miranda. "In order for
statements made prior to a Miranda warning to be admissible, the State
must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the statements
were made while the person was not in custody, or was not subject to
interrogation." State v. Bragg, 2012 ME 102, ,rs, 48 A.3d 769, 773,

5
quoting State v. Bridges, 2003 ME 103i!23, 829 A.2d 247. Whether a
person is in custody depends on "whether a reasonable person standing
in the defendant's shoes, would have felt he or she was not at liberty to
terminate the interrogation and leave." Id .. When Defendant was
speaking to Sgt. Porter, he was not under arrest. He was the subject of a
roadside detention, which was a brief and temporary investigatory stop.
See Bragg, at ,rg. This brief detention to investigate is consistent with
the characteristics of a Teny-type stop that does not rise to the level of
custody for Fifth Amendment purposes. See Bragg. Defendant was not
in custody during his statements to Sgt. Porter. Sgt. Porter went the
hospital to continue her investigation but her conduct did not create a de
facto arrest. Further, although charged, Defendant was not arrested.

Based on the foregoing, Defendant's Motion t~~

Dated: December 9, 2019
Deborah P. Cashman
Judge, Maine District Court

6
ST ATE OF MAINE CRIMINAL DOCKET
VS CUMBERLAND, ss .
DANA J ALLEN Docket No CUMCD-CR-2019-02841
39 SANFORD ROAD
WATERBORO ME 04087
DOCKET RECORD
DOB: 05/13/1965
Attorney: DEBORAH FEAGANS State's Attorney: JONATHAN SAHRBECK
LAW OFFICE OF DEBORAH MUNSON
3fAf:i.1f~§~f?ET SUITE4
GORHAM ME 04038
APPOINTED 06/05/2019
Filing Document: CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Major Case Type: MISDEMEANOR (CLASS D,E)
Fi ling Date: 06/03/2019
Charge(s)
1 OUI (ALCOHOL), 1 PRIOR 02/15/2019 SCARBOROUGH
Seq 12944 29-A 2411(1-A)(B)(I) Class D

2 FAIL TO STOP, REMAIN, PROVIDE INFORMATION 02/15/2019 SCARBOROUGH
Seq 10958 29-A 2253(3) Class E

Docket Events:
06/04/2019 FILING DOCUMENT- CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED ON 06/03/2019

06/04/2019 Charge(s): 1,2
HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULE OTHER COURT ON 06/05/2019 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No.

PORSC
06/05/2019 Charge(s): I ,2
HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 06/05/2019
JED FRENCH , JUDGE
DA: CARLOS DIAZ
Defendant Present in Court
DEFENDANT INFORMED OF CHARGES. FTRl
06/05/2019 Charge(s): 1,2
PLEA - NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 06/05/2019

06/05/2019 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 06/05/2019

06/05/2019 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL GRANTED ON 06/05/2019
JED FRENCH , JUDGE
COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
06/05/2019 Party(s): DANA J ALLEN
ATfORNEY - APPOINTED ORDERED ON 06/05/2019

Attorney: DEBORAH FEAGANS
06/05/2019 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 09/10/2019 al 08:30 a.m . in Room No . 7

06/05/20 I 9 Charge(s): I ,2
TRIAL- JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 11/12/2019 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 11

NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL
09/10/2019 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 09/10/2019
DEBORAH CASHMAN , JUDGE
Attorney: DEBORAH FEAGANS

CR-200 Page 1 of 3 Printed on: 12/09/2019