ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS
William R. Stokes Justice.
before the court is the Defendant's Motion to Suppress
Evidence resulting from the taking of a urine sample from him
on March 2, 2017. The motion was filed on August 11,
2017. A hearing on the motion was held on
November 28, 2017. The court received the testimony of Maine
State Trooper Seth Allen, a certified drug recognition
expert. Based on the Trooper's testimony, the court makes
the following findings of fact.
March 2, 2017, the Defendant was taken into custody after
Augusta police responded to a scene on Route 201 at which the
Defendant's vehicle was off the road and on the opposite
side of the road. The officer at the scene observed 6 clues
on the HGN (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus) examination and
multiple clues on the field sobriety tests, including the
walk and turn and the one-leg stand.
Defendant was brought to the Augusta Police Department where
he performed a breath test using the intoxilyzer machine. The
Defendant's BAC from the breath test was 0.00.
that the Defendant had been under the influence of drugs,
rather than alcohol, an Augusta police officer called Trooper
Allen to come to the station and conduct a drug recognition
examination of the Defendant. Trooper Allen complied with
this request, and arrived at the Augusta Police Department
about an hour, or perhaps slightly more than an hour, after
the Defendant had been brought there.
Allen began the DRE by taking the Defendant's pulse,
doing addition field sobriety tests, examining the
Defendant's eyes, checking his muscle tone, etc. The
Trooper then stated:
TROOPER: I'm going to need a urine sample.
TROOPER: Are you going to be able to give me one?
TROOPER: Do you need to go now?
Trooper continued with his DRE examination of the Defendant,
and at some point, the Defendant was handed a cup, entered
the bathroom, urinated into the cup in the presence of the
Trooper, and signed the label of the cup. The Defendant did
not affirmatively object to providing a urine sample, nor was
he told that he could refuse to provide one. The Defendant
was never affirmatively or expressly asked if he was willing
to provide a urine sample.
sole issue before the court is whether the State has met its
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the
Defendant voluntarily consented to the taking of his urine
sample. The State acknowledges that no search warrant was
obtained for the urine ...