State v. Bjorkaryd-Bradbury, 2002 ME 44

792 A.2d 1082 (Me. 2002) · Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · March 27, 2002

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Margaretha Bjorkaryd-Bradbury's OUI conviction after concluding that a Scarborough police roadblock did not violate Maine's seatbelt-enforcement statute or the federal and state constitutional protections against unreasonable seizures. The court held that the roadblock had a general motor-vehicle-safety purpose, was minimally intrusive, and was reasonable under the applicable balancing test.

Court
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Writing for the Court
Clifford, J.; Saufley, C.J.; Rudman, J.; Dana, J.; Alexander, J.; Calkins, J.
Jurisdiction
Maine
Decision date
March 27, 2002
Procedural posture
Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for operating under the influence after entering a conditional guilty plea, preserving her challenge to the denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained at a police roadblock.
Standard of review
Motions to suppress are reviewed for errors of law, with factual findings reviewed for clear error. Statutory construction is reviewed de novo.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine; binding precedent in Maine.
Parties
Margaretha Bjorkaryd-Bradbury v. State of Maine
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

search and seizurefourth amendmentsuppression of evidencecriminal procedurestatutory interpretation

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional lawmotor vehicle lawevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the roadblock violated 29-A M.R.S.A. § 2081(4)(E) because it enforced the seatbelt law without first detaining motorists for suspected violations of another law.
  2. Whether the roadblock constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Maine Constitution because its primary purpose was unlawful.

Holdings

  1. A roadblock conducted for a broad motor-vehicle safety purpose, including but not limited to checking seatbelt violations, does not violate section 2081(4)(E).
  2. The roadblock was constitutional because it served a legitimate highway-safety purpose, was reasonably effective, and imposed only minimal intrusion on motorists.

Key quotations

It goes without saying that our holding today does nothing to alter the constitutional status of the sobriety and border checkpoints that we approved in [Michigan Department of Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 450-55, 110 S.Ct. 2481, 110 L.Ed.2d 412 (1990),] and [United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976),] or of the type of traffic checkpoint that we suggested would be lawful in [Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979)]. (792 A.2d at 1085)
Because the roadblock was reasonably effective in promoting the State's strong interest in preventing traffic accidents and promoting the health and welfare of its citizens, and the stops were minimally intrusive, the roadblock was constitutional. (792 A.2d at 1086)

Factual background

The Scarborough Police Department operated a roadblock on Payne Road that stopped every southbound vehicle for a brief safety inspection. Although the log described it as a seatbelt roadblock, officers checked for seatbelt, registration, inspection, equipment, and other motor-vehicle violations. Approximately 1,020 vehicles were stopped, and the roadblock resulted in arrests, summonses, warnings, and equipment-defect notices. Defendant was stopped at approximately 5:00 p.m. and was detained further after an officer observed that her vehicle window was open only a few inches.

Procedural history

The District Court in Portland denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence, which challenged the constitutionality and statutory authority for the roadblock. The case was transferred to the Superior Court in Cumberland County, where defendant entered a conditional guilty plea and was convicted of OUI. The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…