State of Maine v. Lawrence

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL COURT
KENNEBEC, SS. AUGUSTA
DOCKET NO. CR-2019-1347

STATE OF MAINE

V. ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

JAMES R. LA WREN CE

INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the court on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress dated
December 3, 2019. An evidentiary hearing on the motion was held on October 16,
2020. Trooper Jacob Roddy of the Maine State Police testified.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the court makes the following
findings of fact.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Sometime around 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning of June 28, 2019, Trooper
Roddy was dispatched to the scene of a motor vehicle accident in Wayne. Fire and
rescue personnel were already there. The Defendant (James Lawrence) was inside
an ambulance. Trooper Roddy was told by the rescue personnel that they could
smell the odor of alcohol coming from Lawrence, and Roddy himself also smelled
it. He also noted that Lawrence's eyes were glassy and bloodshot.
Lawrence declined medical treatment for any injuries. When asked by Roddy
what had happened, Lawrence said that he got lost, missed a tum and ended up in a
ditch by the side of the road. He told Roddy that the accident happened around 10:30
or 11 :00 p.m. the previous evening and "he was just going to sleep it off." He told
Roddy that he'd had 3 or 4 beers. Roddy had Lawrence perform some standard field
sobriety tests, including horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN), the walk and tum and
the one-leg stand. Roddy observed numerous clues.
Trooper Roddy then asked Lawrence to describe his level of sobriety at the
time of the accident on a scale of Oto 10, with zero being "stone cold sober" and ten
being the "most drunk in his life." Lawrence replied: "3 or 4." It is this question,
and only this question, that Lawrence seeks to suppress from evidence.
Trooper Roddy acknowledged during cross examination that this question is
one that he routinely asks when investigating a possible impaired driving case, but
he admitted that it is not taught at the Maine Criminal Justice Academy and is not
mentioned or approved in the NITSA manual. He also agreed that the "scale of Oto
10" question is not quantified, in the sense that someone could have a BAC of .02,
yet also be the "most drunk in his life."
Trooper Roddy testified that he believed that Lawrence was likely impaired
and that he intended to arrest him, even before he asked the "Oto 10 scale" question.
DISCUSSION
Lawrence contends that the "O to 10 scale" question constituted custodial
interrogation, which was not preceded by the administration of Miranda warnings
and a voluntary waiver thereof. The State counters that, prior to his arrest, Lawrence
was only subjected to a limited Terry-type investigatory detention that required no
Miranda warnings.
Both the United State Supreme Court and the Law Court have stated that a
brief roadside stop is the equivalent of a so-called Terry stop and that "[p]ersons
temporarily detained pursuant to such stops are not 'in custody' for purposes of
Miranda." State v, Bragg, 2012 ME 102, ~ 9, 48 A. 3d 769 citing Berkemer v.
McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439-40 (1984). Such stops are justified if based upon
reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity and may also be based upon
public safety concerns, including the investigation of a motor vehicle accident.

2
Bragg, 2012 ME 102, ~ 10; See State v. Donatelli, 2010 ME 43, ~ 11,995 A. 2d 238;
State v. Pinkham, 565 A. 2d 318, 319-20 (Me. 1989). As the First Circuit Court of
Appeals has noted, "[t]here is no scientifically precise formula that enables courts to
distinguish between valid investigatory stops and de facto arrests." United States v.
Owens, 167 F. 3d 739, 748-49 (1" Cir. 1999) quoting United States v. Zapata, 18 F.
3d 971, 975 (1" Cir. 1994). Nevertheless, the Law Court has provided guidance in
this area of the law.
"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, ~ 8, 48 A.3d 769 quoting State v. Bridges, 2003 ME 103, ~
23,829 A.2d 247. See also State v. Poblete, 2010 ME 37, ~ 21,993 A.2d 1104.
The Law Court has stated that the "ultimate inquiry" regarding whether
someone is in custody for Miranda purposes "is whether a reasonable person in the
shoes of [Lawrence] would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the
interrogation and leave or if there was a restraint on freedom of movement of the
degree associated with a formal arrest." State v. Prescott, 2012 ME 96, ~ 10, 48
A.3d218 quoting State v. Poblete, 2010 ME 37, ~ 22,993 A.3d 1104.
The test is "purely objective" and a variety of factors must be considered in
their "totality, not in isolation." State v. Prescott, 2012 ME 96, ~ 11; State v. Dion,
2007 ME 87, ~ 23, 928 A.2d 746. The Law Court has consistently identified the
following, non-exhaustive list of factors that are to be considered on the custody
issue:
(1) the locale where the defendant made the statements;

(2) the party who initiated the contact;
(3) the existence or non-existence of probable cause to arrest (to the extent
communicated to the defendant);

3
(4) subjective views, beliefs or intent that the police manifested to the
defendant, to the extent they would affect how a reasonable person in the defendant's
position would perceive his or her freedom to leave;
(5) subjective views or beliefs that the defendant manifested to the police, to
the extent the officer's response would affect how a reasonable person in the
defendant's position would perceive his or her freedom to leave;
(6) the focus of the investigation (as a reasonable person in the defendant's
position would perceive it);
(7) whether the suspect was questioned in familiar surroundings;
(8) the number of law enforcement officers present;
(9) the degree of physical restraint placed upon the suspect; and
(10) the duration and character of the interrogation.

Lawrence focuses on Trooper Roddy's testimony that he subjectively believed
or knew that Lawrence was likely impaired, and that he subjectively intended to
arrest him even before he asked the "Oto 10 scale" question . He maintains that that
this testimony shows that Roddy had probable cause to arrest him and that he
intended to do so.
Lawrence's argument, however, misses the mark because Trooper Roddy
never expressed or communicated to Lawrence his subjective beliefs regarding the
existence of probable cause and never manifested to him any intention to arrest him
for operating under the influence.
The Law Court's jurisprudence in this area is clear. The test is "purely
objective," and the subjective beliefs or intentions of the officer are not relevant to
the inquiry unless they are communicated to the defendant. In the court's view,
Trooper Roddy's investigation of Lawrence's motor vehicle accident clearly fit
within the parameters of a Terry stop and detention, including the "O to 10 scale"

4
question. Accordingly, no Miranda warnings were required because there was no
custodial interrogation at that point in time. Moreover, the other factors noted above,
although not a mere checklist, weigh in favor of a finding that no custodial
interrogation occurred up to the point when Lawrence was arrested by Trooper
Roddy.
CONCLUSION
The entry is: Defendant's Motion to Suppress dated De 019 is
DENIED. 1

Dated: October 27, 2020 .

Justice, Superior Court

(
/7))
Entered on the docket Lo /2,,7
I

' On October 6, 2020, Lawrence filed a Motion for Further Discovery seeking a report
of any expert witness the State intends to call at trial. Although the motion was not in
order to be heard on October 16, 2020, the parties and the court did engage in a fairly full
discussion of it. The court would request the State to inform it if it wishes to oppose the
motion so that a hearing can be scheduled on it or the court can rule on the motion
without a hearing.

5