Opinion ID: 3217546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: [¶2] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the court’s order denying Sasso’s motion to suppress, the record supports the following facts. See 2 State v. Prescott, 2012 ME 96, ¶ 2, 48 A.3d 218. On March 28, 2014, an Ellsworth police officer, who was also part of an underage drinking task force, was on patrol. The officer watched Sasso, who was eighteen at the time, leave a convenience store, get into the driver’s seat of a car, and drive away from the store. The night was rainy, and the roads were wet. The officer followed Sasso for a short distance and did not observe any problems with the operation of the vehicle. He did, however, notice a problem with the brake lights on Sasso’s car. One of the brake lights appeared to be “stuck on.”1 The officer described the problem of the brake light as “a safety violation.” He turned on his blue lights and effected a stop of Sasso’s car. Sasso pulled over without incident. Sasso was driving with a license that had been suspended as a result of an OUI conviction, and he was arrested for operating after suspension. [¶3] Sasso was charged by criminal complaint with operating after suspension (Class E), 29-A M.R.S. § 2412-A(1-A)(B). He entered a not guilty plea and moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the officer’s stop of the vehicle, arguing that the stop was pretextual and that there was no reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the stop. Regarding the alleged pretext, Sasso 1 Sasso argued that although one of his taillights was much brighter than the other, causing the appearance that his brake light was stuck on, his brake light was not actually stuck on. Whether or not the brake light was actually stuck on is irrelevant because the record supports a finding that at the time of the stop, the officer believed Sasso’s brake light was stuck on and cited the offending brake light as the reason for initiating the stop. 3 argued that the officer thought that Sasso had purchased alcohol at the convenience store, and he hoped to find evidence of underage drinking by stopping the car. [¶4] Three people testified at the hearing on the motion to suppress: (1) the officer who stopped Sasso; (2) Sasso’s mother, who confirmed that one of the taillights was a bit brighter than the other, perhaps because it was canted at a slightly different angle; and (3) another individual regarding a potential reason for the brighter taillight. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied the motion. The court made very brief findings on the record, including the finding that “there’s clearly something out of whack with this car.” The court made no explicit finding on pretext, determining that the State was correct that in these circumstances the officer’s suspicion regarding underage possession of alcohol was “neither here nor there.” [¶5] Neither party moved for further findings and conclusions. See M.R. Crim. P. 41A(d). Although Sasso had argued that the stop was pretextual, he did not seek specific findings at the hearing or seek further findings after the hearing. [¶6] Following the denial of the motion to suppress, Sasso entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere pursuant to M.R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). The court found Sasso guilty and sentenced him to the mandatory seven days in jail to be satisfied by completion of ten days in an alternative sentencing program, a $600 4 fine, and a one-year license suspension. Sasso then timely appealed. See 15 M.R.S. § 2115 (2015).