STATE v. W. FULLER, 556 A.2d 224 (Me. 1989)

STATE of Maine v. Gardner W. FULLER.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.Submitted on Briefs March 8, 1989.
Decided April 3, 1989.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Waldo County, Beaulieu, J.

William R. Anderson, Dist. Atty., Patricia Worth, Asst. Dist. Atty., Belfast, for plaintiff.

David M. Melesky, Winterport, for defendant.

COLLINS, Justice.

Gardner W. Fuller appeals his conviction of operating after revocation in violation of 29 M.R.S.A. § 2298 (Class C) (Supp. 1988) entered on a conditional guilty plea after the Superior Court (Waldo County; Beaulieu, J.) denied his Motion to Suppress.

In order to initiate an investigatory stop, a law enforcement officer must act on the basis of “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” State v. Griffin, 459 A.2d 1086, 1089 (Me. 1983). We will not disturb the trial court’s finding that the intrusion was reasonably warranted unless the record on appeal establishes that the finding is clearly erroneous. State v. LaPlante, 534 A.2d 959, 962 (Me. 1987). In the present case, Officer Lindall testified that Fuller’s car approached him at approximately 6:30 p.m. on October 9, 1987 with its headlights blinking on and off four or five times within a quarter of a mile. Lindall, thinking the headlights were possibly defective, stopped Fuller to advise him to fix the headlights before getting stranded in the dark. Viewing these facts in their totality, and recognizing that the presiding justice alone passes upon the credibility and weight of the testimony and decides what inferences and deductions can reasonably be drawn therefrom, we cannot say that the Superior Court clearly erred in finding that Officer Lindall reasonably suspected that Fuller may have been in trouble. See LaPlante, 534 A.2d at 962 (finding that a lone car pulled over to the side of a major highway at night reasonably warranted a state trooper’s inquiry).

The entry is:

Judgment affirmed.

All concurring.

Page 651

jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle
Tags: 556 A.2d 224

Recent Posts

ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF MAINE, INC. v. SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE, 40 A.3d 380 (2012)

2012 ME 21 40 A.3d 380 ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF MAINE, INC., v. SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE…

8 years ago

BURNELL v. BURNELL, 40 A.3d 390 (2012)

2012 ME 24 40 A.3d 390 Franklin L. BURNELL Jr. v. Lynette D. BURNELL. Docket No.…

8 years ago

McCORMICK v. CRANE, 37 A.3d 295 (2012)

2012 ME 20 37 A.3d 295 Christopher J. McCORMICK v. Lawrence CRANE. Docket No. Cum–11–31. Supreme…

8 years ago

DUNLOP v. TOWN OF WESTPORT ISLAND, 37 A.3d 300 (2012)

2012 ME 22 37 A.3d 300 Deirdre DUNLOP v. TOWN OF WESTPORT ISLAND et al. Docket…

8 years ago

PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO. v. FARRINGTON, 37 A.3d 305 (2012)

2012 ME 23 37 A.3d 305 PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY v. Joshuah P. FARRINGTON. Docket No.…

8 years ago

STATE v. ROBBINS, 37 A.3d 294 (2012)

2012 ME 19 37 A.3d 294 STATE of Maine v. Timothy Scott ROBBINS. Docket No. Oxf–11–354.…

8 years ago