State of Maine v. Glantz

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, ss Criminal Action
Docket No. CR-19-00927

STATE OF MAINE

vs. DECISION AND JUDGMENT

LINDA GLANTZ

The defendant is charged by complaint with being an unlicensed vehicle dealer in

violation of 29-A M.R.S. §951(2). The complaint alleges that she:

"did engage in the business of buying, selling, exchanging, offering to negotiate
or advertising a sale of vehicles without having been issued a license under Title
29-A, Chapter 9, Subchapter 3." 1

The State relies on the part of the complaint charging that she advertised a sale of

vehicles without having been issued a license. After the close of evidence, the court made

findings on the record and incorporates them into this decision. Much of the evidence is

uncontested.

On December 1, 2018, the defendant applied to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) for

a license to sell used cars at 950 Roosevelt Trail (here-in-after referred to as Rte. 302) in

Windham, Maine. 2 The property is owned by her father who previously operated a used vehicle

business at the location. Another business also operated there after her father but closed

approximately six months before the defendant applied for her license under the name of

"Metropolitan Motors".

1
The complaint also alleges that the offense occurred in Portland, Cumberland County; however, it is uncontested
that all of the events occurred within the Town of Windham. That error ofpleading is irrelevant and venue is proper
in this court as Windham is also within Cumberland County.
2
The court understands that to this date a license has not been issued to the defendant.
As part of a background check for the license, Det. Joseph Nein of the BMV visited the

premises on the afternoon of December 14, 2018 and found that there were approximately eight

vehicles on the premises that were parked in a position that made it appear that they were being

offered for sale. Additionally, there is a large black and white sign on the property that is easily

visible on Rte. 302 that states:

"METROPOLITAN MOTORS
SALES • SERVICE• TOWING
(207) 893-8716"

On top of that sign is another larger yellow sign with large black print that states:

· UnderNew
Management
Witb. Warranties Up To One Year

At the time that Det. Nein visited the premises3 on December 14 at about 3:00 PM, the sign

was illuminated. He believes that the illuminated sign and tb.e manner that vehicles were parked

along Route 302 indicated that tb.ey were for sale. There were no signs, stickers, decorations or

other items on any of the vehicles to draw a person's attention that would indicate they were for

sale. There is no evidence that a motor vehicle history statement was affixed to any vehicle as

required by Maine law. 29-A M.R.S. §952(1)(F) and 10 M.R.S. §1475. When Det. Nein went to

the office it was locked. A person came to the door and informed him that Ms. Glantz was not

present. They left the premises.

Additionally, there is no evidence that the defendant took any affirmative action to sell,

advertise or display for sale any vehicles in violation of the statute.

To qualify for a license to sell used vehicles, an applicant must maintain certain facilities,

including; "[f]acilities for the display of vehicles being handled". 29-A M.R.S. §951(1)(A).

3
Another BMV detective and a supervisor traveled to the premises with Det. Nein, neither testified at the trial.
Although the statute does not state it, the defendant believed that she had to have a sign for the

business in order to get her lice_nse.

Considering the evidence as a whole, the court cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that

Linda Glantz, advertised, "in any form 3 or more vehicles for sale". 4

ORDER

The clerk will make the following entry as the Decision and Judgment of the court:

On the evidence presented at trial, the judgement of the court is:

July 8, 2019

4
The statute also prohibits the display of 3 or more vehicles on the premises for sale within a 3 0-day period, but the
complaint does not charge that alternative and the State noted to the court it was relying on the advertisement for
sale allegation. See 29-A M.R.S. §951(C).