Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Carnevale
Citations: 598 A.2d 746; 1991 Me. LEXIS 243
Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine; October 31, 1991; Maine; State Supreme Court
Michael Carnevale appeals a conviction for operating under the influence of intoxicating liquor following a conditional guilty plea. The appeal focuses on the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a police stop. On March 11, 1990, Officer Theodore Short observed Carnevale's vehicle which appeared to sway into the officer's lane. Although the vehicle's wheels did not cross the center line, it repeatedly traveled over the yellow line while fluctuating in speed between 35 and 40 mph in a 45 mph zone. Officer Short initiated a stop after following the vehicle for approximately a mile and a half. The court referenced the standards for a valid Terry stop, which requires an officer to have an articulable suspicion of criminal conduct that is objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Although the motion court did not explicitly state its findings on these criteria, it was assumed that implicit determinations were made in support of the stop. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine upheld the lower court’s findings, concluding that Officer Short's observations provided sufficient basis for his suspicion that Carnevale was driving under the influence despite the lack of explicit testimony regarding his concerns. The court found no clear error in the implicit findings supporting the legality of the stop, affirming the conviction. The officer's subjective suspicion of ongoing criminal activity can be substantiated through direct testimony or circumstantial evidence. A sufficiently detailed account of the circumstances leading to the officer's actions, combined with the officer's actual response, provides a basis for judicial review, as noted by legal scholar Professor LaFave regarding Terry stops. In State v. Garland, the court found certain suspicions articulated by an officer to be objectively unreasonable, thereby rejecting a subsequent suspicion raised during oral argument. The District Court’s conclusion that Officer Short's suspicion was objectively reasonable is upheld, distinguishing it from State v. Caron, where a single observation did not justify suspicion of intoxication. The current case aligns more closely with State v. Pelletier, where multiple observations justified the officer's suspicion. The court emphasizes that no rigid standard exists for evaluating reasonableness; it defers to the factfinder unless a clear error is present. The judgment is affirmed with all justices concurring. Additionally, it is noted that some legal scholars argue against the requirement for showing actual suspicion by the officer, asserting that the Terry test is purely objective.