Opinion ID: 2009971
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Probable Cause for Detention and Search

Text: Pike argues that the Officer did not have probable cause to detain him or search his car. He claims that the smell of alcohol and his general appearance does not provide the necessary probable cause. On appeal, we will not reverse the court's findings concerning whether probable cause exists unless it is clearly erroneous. State v. Bento, 600 A.2d 1094, 1097 (Me.1991) (citation omitted). The trial court found that probable cause existed to justify the search and detention. Regardless of whether the Officer was authorized, when the Officer detained Pike he adopted the role of a police officer and the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment were implicated. State v. LeGassey, 456 A.2d 366, 367 (Me.1983). In order to justify a brief detention short of a formal arrest, 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. The intrusion is justified if the officer has suspicion of criminal conduct which has taken place, is occurring, or imminently will occur and the suspicion is reasonably warranted. The level of information held by the officer need not, however, rise to that of probable cause required for an arrest. In fact, the observed conduct giving rise to the officer's suspicion of criminal activity may be wholly lawful in itself. Hatch, 614 A.2d at 1301 (citations omitted). In this case, the Officer observed Pike stopping on the shoulder of the road. Pike smelled of alcohol, spoke with slurred speech, and had bloodshot eyes. Additionally, the Officer was told by Pike that someone else had driven the car but the Officer did not see anyone get out of the vehicle. [2] Based on the facts of this case, the trial court's finding that the Officer had articulable suspicion to believe that criminal activity had occurred, thus justifying the detention, is not clearly erroneous. Even if this detention was not brief and would constitute a seizure of the person, the detention nevertheless was justified. We have previously stated that a detention of a motorist by a police officer, who is investigating a car stopped at the side of the road, is a governmental seizure of the person, subject to the exclusionary rule unless shown to be reasonable. LeGassey, 456 A.2d at 367. A finding of reasonableness is also subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. See State v. Izzo, 623 A.2d 1277, 1281 (Me.1993). This reasonableness standard is satisfied if the police show that probable cause existed to warrant the detention. See LeGassey, 456 A.2d at 367 n. 4. On the facts of this case, the trial court's finding of probable cause to justify the detention was not clearly erroneous. Regarding the search of Pike's car for the keys, State v. Mehuren, 594 A.2d 1073, 1075 (Me.1991) states: An officer may conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle or a container when the officers' personal knowledge of facts and circumstances in combination with any reasonably trustworthy information conveyed to them would warrant a prudent person to believe that the [vehicle or] container seized holds either contraband or evidence of a crime. The record discloses that when first approaching [defendant's] vehicle the officer immediately observed signs that [defendant] was intoxicated and that the vehicle contained alcoholic beverages. Having established probable cause to believe that [defendant] was driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the officer was justified in asking [defendant] and his passenger to step out of the vehicle in order to facilitate the officer's search of the vehicle for evidence of that crime. (citations omitted); see also Izzo, 623 A.2d at 1281-82; Bento, 600 A.2d at 1096-97. On the facts of this case, the trial court's finding that the necessary probable cause existed to justify the brief search was not clearly erroneous. The entry is: Judgment affirmed.