State of Maine V. Dickson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

LCOURT UNIFIED CRlMlN A poRTLAND STATE OF MAINE cUMBERLAND, ss. A STATE OF MAINE v. BRENTON H. DICKSON , ket No. CR-12-7843. f .., Doc :z. ···~1 ·J 1 G M K (v.ff) J / .(} ~~ '1 4 ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS ) 21 A testimonial hearing was held on Defendant's Motion to Suppress on March ¢ 2013. Defendant appeared, represented by Attorney Robert Andrews. The State was represented by Assistant District Attorney William Barry· Defendant seeks to suppress evidence arising from what he contends was an unconstitutional stop of the vehicle he was driving. Defendant ar~ues that there ~as no reasonable articulable suspicion justifying the stop becaus~ the pohce officer w,~s ?1d not have a reasonable articulable suspicion and was proceedmg on a theory of mistaken identity" when he pulled the vehicle over. The facts leading up to the stop are undisputed. Officer Garrett Strout of the Scarborough Police Department testified that on the evening ofNove~ber 9, 2012 ~e was parked on the side of Route 22 observing passing traffic and conductmg random hcense plate checks on his patrol car's computer. In running the license plate numbers of the car Defendant was driving, Officer Strout learned that the vehicle was registered to a female, and that the Scarborough Police Department had recently had contact with a previous male driver of the vehicle. That male individual, identified on the computer as one Kevin Prescott, was shown to have outstanding warrants, active bail conditions, and a suspended license. The description provided for Kevin Prescott stated that he was a white male, between the ages of 30 and 40, with brown hair and a thin build. Officer Strout testified that when the car passed him he had observed the driver, who appeared to be a white male matching the description of the individual who had been previously linked with the vehicle and who had outstanding warrants for his arrest. Believing that the driver on November 9 was that same individual, Officer Strout pulled the vehicle over. After the stop, it became apparent that the current driver was not Kevin Prescott, the male with the active warrants, but Brenton Dickson, the Defendant. The court is not persuaded by Defendant's argument that the facts of this matter distinguish this stop from those upheld in State v. McDonald, 201 0 ME 102, State v. Tozier, 2006 ME 105, State v. Huether, 2000 ME 59, State v. Eklund, 2000 ME 175 and Hurtado v. State, 881 S.W.2d 738 (Tx. 1994). On the contrary, those cases make clear that the governing standard requires that the officer at the time of a motorist stop made the stop for a reason that was both reasonable and articulable: that the suspicion be based "on more than speculation or an unsubstantiated hunch." That the officer's reasoning subsequently turns out to be mistaken does not render the stop invalid. See, e.g., Reuther, 748 A.2d at 995 (upholding stop as justified by reasonable articulable suspicion where officer realized after stop that driver was not who he thought he was); State v. Hill, 606 A.2d 793, 795 (upholding stop even though reason for stop turned out to be mistaken). The Texas case cited by Defendant likewise suggests that suppression here is not warranted. See Hurtado, 881 S.W.2d at 742 (upholding stop where officer's purpose was to determine whether driver was one of several individuals with outstanding warrants who showed up in license plate check conducted on patrol car computer)~ That Hurtado involved dealer's plates does not render its reasoning distinguishable. Defendant argues that the reasonableness of the arresting officer's suspicions is undermined by the difference in hair color between Kevin Prescott and Defendant. While Defendant's driver's license lists his hair color as blond or strawberry, and while he may well have had hair of such color at another time, having had the opportunity to observe Defendant in court, it is apparent that his hair color can reasonably be regarded as brown. Accordingly, because Officer Strout had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the driver was someone with a suspended license and outstanding warrants, the stop was constitutional and there are no grounds for Defendant's Motion to Suppress. It is therefore hereby ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress 1s DENIED. DATED: _. . . .,3'-F-~- '-+'\. 1 .£:?_ __ 2 CRIMINAL DOCKET CUMBERLAND, ss. Docket No CUMCD-CR-2012-07843 STATE 0F MAINE vs BRENTON H DICKSON, JR 11 DAVID DR SCARBOROUGH ME 04074 DOCKET RECORD DOB: 07/23/1967 Attorney: ROBERT ANDREWS ROBERT ANDREWS ESQ PO BOX 17621 PORTLAND ME 04112 APPOINTED 12/26/2012 State's Attorney: STEPHANIE ANDERSON Charge(s) OPERATE WHILE LICENSE SUSPENDED/REVOKEDOUI, PRIOR Class E Seq 9890 29-A 2412-A(1-A) (C) STROUT I SCA 1 11/09/2012 SCARBOROUGH Docket Events: 11/19/2012 FILING DOCUMENT - CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 11/13/2012 11/19/2012 Charge (s) : 1 HEARING- ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED FOR 12/26/2012 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. 1 NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 11/19/2012 BAIL BOND - $100.00 CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 11/13/2012 Bail Receipt Type: CR Bail Amt: $100 Date Bailed: 11/10/2012 10/15/80 12/20/2012 Charge(s): 1 SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - Receipt Type: CK Prvdr Name: KATE GRINDEL Rtrn Name: KATE GRINDEL 682 COMPLAINT FILED ON 12/19/2012 12/28/2012 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT HELD ON 12/26/2012 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 1 MARY KELLY , JUDGE DA: ANGELA CANNON TAPE 4587 DEFENDANT INFORMED OF CHARGES. 21 DAYS TO FILE MOTIONS 12/28/2012 Charge(s): 1 PLEA- NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY DEFENDANT ON 12/26/2012 at 08:30a.m. in Room No. 1 MARY KELLY , JUDGE DA : ANGELA CANNON TAPE 4587 12/28/2012 Charge (s): 1 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 02/19/2013 at 01:00 p.m. in Room No. 12/28/2012 Charge(s): 1 TRIAL - JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 04/08/2013 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. CR 200 Page 1 of 2 7 11 Printed on: 03/27/2013 BRENTON H DICKSON, JR CUMCD-CR-2012-07843 DOCKET RECORD NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 12/28/2012 Charge (s) : 1 MOTION - MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF CNSL GRANTED ON 12/26/2012 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. MARY KELLY , JUDGE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 12/28/2012 Party(s): BRENTON H DICKSON JR ATTORNEY - APPOINTED ORDERED ON 12/26/2012 1 Attorney: ROBERT ANDREWS 02/20/2013 Charge (s): 1 HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 02/19/2013 RICHARD MULHERN , JUDGE Attorney: ROBERT ANDREWS DA: WILLIAM BARRY OFFER MADE, MOTION TO SUPRESS TO BE FILED 02/21/2013 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 02/20/2013 02/21/2013 Charge (s) : 1 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 03/21/2013 at 01:00p.m. in Room No. 1 NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 02/21/2013 Charge (s): 1 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ON 02/21/2013 03/22/2013 Charge (s) : 1 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS HELD ON 03/21/2013 MARY KELLY ' JUDGE Attorney: ROBERT ANDREWS DA: WILLIAM BARRY Defendant Present in Court TAPE 4828 ADVISEMENT BY J. KELLY 03/27/2013 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS DENIED ON 03/27/2013 MARY KELLY , JUDGE COPY TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 03/27/2013 ORDER - COURT ORDER FILED ON 03/27/2013 UNDER COPIES SENT TO ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED. ALL PARTIES 3-27-13. A TRUE COPY ATTEST: Clerk CR 200 Page 2 of 2 Printed on: 03/27/2013

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.