ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND FURTHER FINDINGS OF FACT
ANN FRENCH JUDGE.
hearing was held on March 21, 2019 on Defendant's Motion
to Suppress, dated February 16, 2018. Defendant argued that
the State had not established that his client consented to a
blood draw. The State asserted that Defendant had consented
to a blood draw both verbally and in writing, so there was no
need to obtain a search warrant. The State waived the
argument of exigent circumstances.
court ruled that the State established by a preponderance of
the evidence that Defendant had consented to a blood draw.
Defendant Calvin J. Goodhue, through counsel, asks this court
to reconsider and make further findings related to its order
denying Defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant asks
for an analysis of voluntariness of his consent to take a
State v. Dodge, 2011 ME 47 J 11 and 12, 17 A.3d at
128, the Law Court stated:
If a criminal defendant challenges the voluntariness of a
confession, a court must determine if the confession resulted
from the "free choice of a rational mind," was
"not a product of coercive police conduct," and
"if under all of the circumstances its admission would
be fundamentally fair." Mikulewicz, 462 A.2d at 501;
see State v. Poblete, 2010 ME 37, ¶ 24, 993
A.3d 1104, 1109-10; State v. Coombs, 1998 ME 1, J10,
704 A.2d 387, 390-91. This assessment of voluntariness is
based on the totality of the circumstances, and includes both
external and internal factors, such as: the details of the
interrogation; duration of the interrogation; location of the
interrogation; whether the interrogation was custodial; the
recitation of Miranda warnings; the number of
officers involved; the persistence of the officers; police
trickery; threats, promises or inducements made to the
defendant; and the defendant's age, physical and mental
health, emotional stability, and conduct. State v.
Sawyer, 2001 ME 88, ¶9, 772 A.2d 1173, 1176. For
instance, statements made in response to threats, see
Coombs, 1998 ME 1, ¶12, 704 A.2d at 391, or in
response to police promises of leniency, see State v.
McCarthy, 2003 ME 40, 5 ¶12-13, 819 A.2d 335, 340,
may be determined to be involuntary.
all the evidence presented at the hearing on the Motion to
Suppress, this court finds as follows:
Ryan Dinsmore of Waterville Police Department testified at
the hearing on the Motion to Suppress. Officer Dinsmore is a
graduate of the Maine Criminal Justice Academy and has had
twelve years of experience in law enforcement. Officer
Dinsmore was the only witness called to testify at the
hearing on the Motion to Suppress. The court found his
was not present during the hearing.
approximately 1 a.m. on January 11, 2017, Officer Dinsmore
was dispatched to the scene of an accident in Waterville
where a truck had reportedly rolled over into a snow bank.
When he arrived at the scene of the accident, the Officer saw
Defendant Calvin J. Goodhue walking around staggering.
Ambulance personnel were asking Defendant about his injuries
and Officer Dinsmore overheard the Defendant admit to the
EMT's that Defendant was the operator of the vehicle and
that he had consumed approximately 12 beers.
Officer observed that Defendant's eyes were glassy and
watery and there was an odor of alcohol on his breath.
Defendant had a gash on his head and some other small
superficial cuts on his hands and face. Despite his injuries,
Defendant was responsive and answered all the EMT's
questions appropriately. The Officer had probable cause to
believe Defendant had been operating a motor vehicle while
under the influence of alcohol.
was taken to Thayer Hospital by the EMT's. Officer
Dinsmore followed the ambulance to the hospital and arrived
at the same time as the ambulance. The Officer entered the
hospital with the ambulance personnel and the Defendant.
hospital, Defendant was taken to a room in the emergency area
and Officer Dinsmore was permitted by the hospital staff to
be present and have a conversation with Defendant. Officer
Dinsmore was the only Officer present at the hospital.
hospital personnel worked on Defendant's cuts while the
Officer was in the room. During treatment, the Defendant was
conscious. The Officer did not see any ...