M, Hamlen, Esq. Maine Bar No. 9973 Attorney for the
MOTION TO SUPPRESS
COMES Defendant, Mr. Michael Leonard, by and through counsel-
Devens M. Hamlen of The H&H LawCenter, and requests that
this Honorable Court suppress all evidence arrising from the
illegal seizure on May 15, 2015 as it was obtained in
violation of Article 1 section 5 of the Maine State
Constitution and the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
grounds for this Motion, Mr. Leonard respectfully states:
State had charged Mr. Leonard with one Class D Misdemeanor of
Operating Under the Influence and one Class E Misdemeanor of
Unless otherwise indicated, according to reports from
Cumberland County Sheriffs Deputy Nicholas Mangino as well as
discovery provided by the State, the following events
occurred on May 15, 2015:
approximately 12:45 in the morning Deputy Mangino was on
patrol. As Deputy Mangino drove north on Route 35, he came
upon a tan sedan driving north.
While Deputy Mangino drove behind the car, he saw the vehicle
cross the yellow line two times. He also saw the car touch
the white fog line twice. The second time the car touched the
fog line, it traveled on the fog line for a short distance.
Deputy Mangino turned on his blue lights and pulled the car
over. The driver was later identified as Michael Leonard.
After conducting some field sobriety tests and making a few
other observations, Deputy Mangino arrested Mr. Leonard for
Operating Under the Influence.
I, Article 5 of the Maine Constitution provides that
"[t]he people shall be secure in their houses, papers,
and possessions from all unreasonable searches and
seizures." Part 1, Article 5 of the Maine Constitution
as well as 4th Amendment of the United States
Constitution are implicated when a seizure occurs. State
v. Cilley. 1998 ME 34 at ¶ 5.
"A seizure of the person occurs when 'the officer,
by means of physical force or show of authority, has in some
way restrained the liberty of a citizen' such that he is
not free to walk away." State v. Preble. 430
A.2d 553, 555 (Me. 1981) (quoting U.S. v. Viegas.
639 F.2d 42, 44 (1st Cir. 1981)); see also, U.S. v.
Mendenhall. 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (holding that a when a
reasonable person feels as if they are not free to leave, a
seizure occurs). This is an objective standard and the
subjective belief of the officer is not relevant.
Id. at 555 n.6.
warrantless seizure is per se unreasonable unless it is
accompanied by an objective reasonable articulable suspicion
that criminal conduct has occurred or is about to occur.
State v. Whitney. 2012 ME 105; State v.
Langlois. 2005 ME 3.
investigatory stop is a valid exception to the warrant
requirement only if two conditions are met, first "the
officer must in fact have had an articulable suspicion of
criminal conduct" and second "the officer's
suspicion must be objectively reasonable in the totality of
the circumstances." State v. Carnevale, 598
A.2d 746, 748 (Me. 1991). A mere hunch is not enough.
"The officer's inarticulate hunch cannot be
converted into a 'reasonable suspicion' by second
thoughts developed at the suppression hearing."
State v. Chapman, 494 A.2d 314, 317 (Me. 1995). The
police must possess actual ...