What Happens If I am Unconstitutionally Stopped by the Cops?
A “stop” of your vehicle is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment of The United States Constitution. In order for that action by a law enforcement officer to be Constitutionally justified, the officer must have probable cause (PC) to believe that you violated a civil or criminal law, have a reasonable suspicion (RAS) that you have been or are engaged in the commission of a crime (such as operating under the influence—OUI) or that his role as a “community caretaker ” (you are in need of assistance) requires him to “stop” you.
If the officer’s actions in stopping you are not justified by one of the above-referenced reasons, you do have a remedy. That remedy is to timely file a Motion to Suppress. A Motion To Suppress is a request to have the court to exclude, to suppress, evidence from a potential trial in your case that was obtained in violation of your Constitutional right(s).
Some illegal stops are apparent on their face. Example: Cop says, in his report, that he stopped your car simply because he felt like stopping all blue cars on that particular shift. That is clearly illegal and violates the Fourth Amendment. The DA, upon reviewing the case, will simply toss that report in the trash and decline to file a formal complaint. Those cases never see the light of day.
The Motions To Suppress that do see the light of day are heard by judges pre-trial. Remember, the Motion To Suppress is a request by the accused to have a judge suppress or exclude evidence from a potential trial that was obtained in violation of one or more of your Constitutional rights (for purposes of this article: your Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures).
Successful Motion To Suppress in Knox County
Here is a real life example of a successful Motion To Suppress in which the police reports clearly manifested both PC and RAS for the stop. Sarah Churchill tried this difficult Motion To Suppress last Friday in Knox County.
Cops’ reports and testimony stated that client revved his engine at red light, had a very loud exhaust (all on video but not audio tape, thus judge must rely on cops’ credibility for this probable cause for traffic violations to justify subsequent stop). Reports and testimony from the cops’ state erratic operation including numerous crossings over the center line and weaving in the lane. Cops’ report reason for stop as all of the above, emphasizing the erratic operation as driving “all over the road”.
Attorney Churchill obtained the dash cam video which has no sound at first during alleged engine revving. But, the DVD does show client driving for two minutes; client driving straight as an arrow, however, from DVD, it is difficult to tell if he touched or crossed the centerline. Almost always judges will give the benefit of the doubt to the cop because he has a much better view on line crossings than that which is revealed in a DVD. Accordingly, most of these Motions to Suppress are denied especially when cops testify that other infractions occurred (unnecessary noise and loud exhaust).
However, Sarah Churchill went further in viewing the DVD. The cop initially told client that he stopped him because he “was all over the road back there”. Sarah seized upon that obvious lie and, hence, destroyed the cops’ credibility on the “engine revving” and also obliterated any “benefit of the doubt” normally afforded cops on their details versus ambiguities or close calls recorded on DVDs.
Through detailed preparation and using surgical like precision, Sarah prevailed on a difficult Motion To Suppress. The case against her client will be dismissed.
Disclaimer: This article is intended to provide general, not specific, information about Maine law. The publication of this article does not constitute an attorney-client relationship between the author(s) and the reader(s).
