Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Maine opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maine courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dulacgreen1 sentence2016As we said in State v. Dulac, “Car-on does not stand for the proposition that deviant operation, because it occurs only once, does not justify a Terry-type stop.” 600 A.2d 1121, 1123 (Me.1992). [¶ 12] Here, unlike Caron, we need not consider whether the evidence gives rise to a suspicion of criminal activity because the warden’s testimony, which the court found credible and which was not contradicted in any respect, is sufficient to constitute “specific and articulable facts” to justify stopping the defendant based upon a suspicion that Simmons had committed a traffic infraction. [¶ 13] We fin | 1 | 1 |
State v. Portergreen2 sentences2016See State v. Porter, 2008 ME 175, ¶¶ 8, 11-12 , 960 A.2d 321 . 2016See State v. Porter, 2008 ME 175, ¶¶ 8, 11-12 , 960 A.2d 321 . | 1 | 1 |
Berkemer v. McCartygreen2 sentences2012See Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 439-40 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 . [¶ 12] This situation is distinguishable from the recent case of State v. Prescott, 2012 ME 96, ¶¶ 3-7 , 48 A.3d 218 , where an officer took the defendant back to the accident scene from her home before another officer asked her questions regarding the accident and administered sobriety tests. 2012See Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 439-40 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 . [¶ 12] This situation is distinguishable from the recent case of State v. Prescott, 2012 ME 96, ¶¶ 3-7 , 48 A.3d 218 , where an officer took the defendant back to the accident scene from her home before another officer asked her questions regarding the accident and administered sobriety tests. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Prescottgreen2 sentences2012See Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 439-40 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 . [¶ 12] This situation is distinguishable from the recent case of State v. Prescott, 2012 ME 96, ¶¶ 3-7 , 48 A.3d 218 , where an officer took the defendant back to the accident scene from her home before another officer asked her questions regarding the accident and administered sobriety tests. 2012See Berkemer, 468 U.S. at 439-40 , 104 S.Ct. 3138 . [¶ 12] This situation is distinguishable from the recent case of State v. Prescott, 2012 ME 96, ¶¶ 3-7 , 48 A.3d 218 , where an officer took the defendant back to the accident scene from her home before another officer asked her questions regarding the accident and administered sobriety tests. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Dianne Sutherland, United States of America v. Alan W. Finigreen1 sentence2008Thus, the facts in this case do not evidence illegal conduct by the officers who conducted the stop, see Lemieux, 662 A.2d at 212-13 , and we have no occasion to determine whether the exclusionary rule would apply to illegal conduct unrelated to Fourth Amendment protections, cf. United States v. Sutherland, 929 F.2d 765, 770 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 822 , 112 S.Ct. 83 , 116 L.Ed.2d 56 (1991) (stating that suppression may be justified when state officials flagrantly abuse the law and federal officials “seek to capitalize on that abuse”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lemieuxgreen2 sentences2008Questioning the operator or occupants. 29-A M.R.S. § 105(1) (emphasis added). [¶ 6] We construed the predecessor to section 105(1) more than a decade ago and held that the statute “merely ... grant[ed] officers the statutory authority to take otherwise constitutionally permitted action,” and did not “condition a police officer’s authority to conduct a Terry-type stop of a motorist on that officer being in uniform.” State v. Lemieux, 662 A.2d 211, 212-13 (Me.1995) (citing 29 M.R.S.A. § 2501 (Pamph.1994), repealed and replaced by P.L.1993, ch. 683, §§ A-l, A-2 (effective Jan. 1, 1995) (currently 2008Questioning the operator or occupants. 29-A M.R.S. § 105(1) (emphasis added). [¶ 6] We construed the predecessor to section 105(1) more than a decade ago and held that the statute “merely ... grant[ed] officers the statutory authority to take otherwise constitutionally permitted action,” and did not “condition a police officer’s authority to conduct a Terry-type stop of a motorist on that officer being in uniform.” State v. Lemieux, 662 A.2d 211, 212-13 (Me.1995) (citing 29 M.R.S.A. § 2501 (Pamph.1994), repealed and replaced by P.L.1993, ch. 683, §§ A-l, A-2 (effective Jan. 1, 1995) (currently | 1 | 1 |
State v. Allengreen1 sentence1995State v. Allen, 485 A.2d 953, 956 (Me.1984) (section 2501 does not require an officer to have probable cause to conduct a Terry-type stop). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garlandgreen1 sentence1992In Garland we acknowledged an affirmative duty on the part of a police officer “to discontinue the investigation and forego a Terry-type stop of [an] individual when by the time of the intended stop justification for the initial suspicion has evaporated.” Garland, 482 A.2d at 144 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence1984See State v. Griffin, 459 A.2d 1086, 1089 (Me.1983); see also State v. Johnson, 365 A.2d 497, 498 (Me.1976). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ronald Dwight Poseygreen1 sentence1984United States v. Posey, 663 F.2d 37, 41 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 959 , 102 S.Ct. 1473 , 71 L.Ed.2d 679 (1982). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Griffingreen1 sentence1984See State v. Griffin, 459 A.2d 1086, 1089 (Me.1983); see also State v. Johnson, 365 A.2d 497, 498 (Me.1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maine. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ram v. Massachusetts Department of Transportation
green
1 sentence2008Thus, the facts in this case do not evidence illegal conduct by the officers who conducted the stop, see Lemieux, 662 A.2d at 212-13 , and we have no occasion to determine whether the exclusionary rule would apply to illegal conduct unrelated to Fourth Amendment protections, cf. United States v. Sutherland, 929 F.2d 765, 770 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 822 , 112 S.Ct. 83 , 116 L.Ed.2d 56 (1991) (stating that suppression may be justified when state officials flagrantly abuse the law and federal officials “seek to capitalize on that abuse”). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
2 Tudor City Place Associates v. 2 Tudor City Tenants Corp.
green
1 sentence2008Thus, the facts in this case do not evidence illegal conduct by the officers who conducted the stop, see Lemieux, 662 A.2d at 212-13 , and we have no occasion to determine whether the exclusionary rule would apply to illegal conduct unrelated to Fourth Amendment protections, cf. United States v. Sutherland, 929 F.2d 765, 770 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 822 , 112 S.Ct. 83 , 116 L.Ed.2d 56 (1991) (stating that suppression may be justified when state officials flagrantly abuse the law and federal officials “seek to capitalize on that abuse”). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Pabon v. Florida
green
1 sentence2008Thus, the facts in this case do not evidence illegal conduct by the officers who conducted the stop, see Lemieux, 662 A.2d at 212-13 , and we have no occasion to determine whether the exclusionary rule would apply to illegal conduct unrelated to Fourth Amendment protections, cf. United States v. Sutherland, 929 F.2d 765, 770 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 822 , 112 S.Ct. 83 , 116 L.Ed.2d 56 (1991) (stating that suppression may be justified when state officials flagrantly abuse the law and federal officials “seek to capitalize on that abuse”). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Sanders v. United States
green
1 sentence1984United States v. Posey, 663 F.2d 37, 41 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 959 , 102 S.Ct. 1473 , 71 L.Ed.2d 679 (1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Harris v. United States
green
1 sentence1984United States v. Posey, 663 F.2d 37, 41 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 959 , 102 S.Ct. 1473 , 71 L.Ed.2d 679 (1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Posey v. United States
green
1 sentence1984United States v. Posey, 663 F.2d 37, 41 (7th Cir.1981), cert. denied 455 U.S. 959 , 102 S.Ct. 1473 , 71 L.Ed.2d 679 (1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.