ELLSWORTH, Maine — The Maine Supreme Judicial Court on Tuesday effectively overturned an operating under the influence conviction against an Ellsworth man after the court determined the stop that resulted in his OUI charge violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Daniel Whitney was charged with OUI in November 2010. In June 2011, he filed a motion to suppress all evidence against him, arguing that “the stop was not justified because [Ellsworth Police Officer Shawn Willey] had not observed any illegal activity” prior to stopping Whitney, according to the court’s decision.
Ellsworth District Court denied that request, and in December 2011, Whitney entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal the District Court’s denial of his motion to suppress. The Law Court vacated the conviction in a 4-2 decision, with Chief Justice Leigh Saufley and Justice Donald Alexander dissenting.
Around 1:40 a.m. on Nov. 13, 2010, Willey responded to a single-vehicle accident on the Christian Ridge Road in Ellsworth. The vehicle had gone off the road, struck a utility pole and rolled over. No operator was present, and no blood was at the scene, Willey said.
Willey and his police dog searched for the driver, but turned up nothing. Ninety minutes later, Willey found a group of three men speaking with a driver and passenger of a vehicle that pulled alongside them on Red Bridge Road, a few miles from the accident. The driver was Daniel Whitney.
Willey began to speak with the pedestrians and Whitney started to drive away, at which point Willey told him not to leave because he wanted to verify that neither Whitney nor his passenger were in the accident. According to the court document, Willey had testified he did not see anything illegal before detaining Whitney.
It was three or four minutes before the officer approached the vehicle. When he did, Willey “detected the odor of intoxicating beverages and noticed an open can of beer in the vehicle,” which ultimately led to the OUI charge.
Whitney appealed the lower court’s decision to deny his effort to throw out the evidence gathered in what he said was an unconstitutional stop. On Tuesday, the Law Court agreed.
Willey was investigating the crime of “failing to report an accident,” the court ruled, which is not a serious enough crime to warrant detentions when no reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct is aroused.
“The stop of a motorist three to four miles from the scene of a single-vehicle accident, at least 90 minutes after the accident occurred, is unlikely to significantly aid an investigation into whether the vehicle’s operator had reported the accident to the proper authorities,” wrote Justice Andrew Mead for the majority.
Mead continued: “Sanctioning the stop here would grant law enforcement unfettered discretion to randomly stop any given motorist more than an hour after a crime had been committed, in the absence of any reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal conduct, on the chance that the vehicle’s occupants may have had something to do with the crime. The Fourth Amendment prohibits that result.”
Jeffrey Toothaker of Ellsworth represented Whitney from the beginning. He said there’s no question that his client was driving while intoxicated. While it may look like Whitney got off on a technicality, he said, it’s important for law enforcement to follow the rules.
“The state has rules. If they don’t follow the rules, they don’t get the conviction,” he said Wednesday. “We asked the court to enforce the rules, and we won.”
Writing for the dissenting minority, Saufley said that the “minimal” intrusion to Whitney’s liberty was outweighed by the stop’s potential to provide critical information in which an unknown person was involved in a serious accident. For that reason, she wrote, the lower court was right to deem the stop legal.
While the court’s decision doesn’t technically reverse the guilty conviction, Toothaker said, it does mean that the lower court must throw out the evidence against Whitney. That all but guarantees the charges are dismissed, he said.
Willey was unavailable Wednesday and Ellsworth Police Lt. Harold Page declined comment on this story.
Follow Mario Moretto on Twitter at @riocarmine.



He got lucky! Hopefully, he thinks twice about drinking and driving again. Next time, he may not be so lucky, & cause a fatal crash!
He didn’t get lucky at all. He nearly was a victim of the abuse of police power. The cop had no cause to detain him. Yet he did. Its not luck that set him free, its ignorance and arrogance on the part of the officer. He may not be so lucky, indeed and he might cause a fatal crash and the sky might fall, but I doubt it… although, if the dinosaurs were here, they might disagree with me….
The fact of the matter is, he was drinking & driving. If he’d been pulled over legally, he wouldn’t have had the charges dismissed. THAT’S what I meant when I said he got lucky.
I hope you and your dinosaurs are there when/if he kills someone the next time he drives drunk (if he didn’t learn his lesson this time), so you can tell the family you doubted it would happen. I’m sure they will feel relieved that you doubted drinking & driving would kill someone.
Why would he have learned his lesson? Nothing happened. No lesson to learn. A close call is just that. Close…. Ive known lots of people who have driven drunk, some of them for years and years. They are all still alive. They didnt kill anyone. They didnt crash. Nothing. Not defending their behavior, but its not just drunk drivers that kill people. In fact, more sober drivers kill people then drunk drivers. And before you start telling me I am wrong, think about how many more people drive sober. Millions. Every day. And they kill people, every day. Sober. Drunk. Stoned. Old. Young. Cell phones. Coffee. McNuggets. Lots of reasons why lots of people damage property and hurt people while driving. But, not everyone who dips a McNugget into a little square of sweet, sweet flavor crashes after-wards. Some do. I think we should all be absolutely scared of drivers leaving McDonalds, especially if we see them with anything chicken or sauce related. My point here is, lots and lots of people drive drunk. Not all of them kill someone, not everyone uses BBQ with their nuggets, and not everyone is so quick to jump on the “im terrified” band-wagon. Personally, Im more worried about sober, ignorant drivers. Why? Its simple. Truth is, drunk drivers dont want to be caught, so they make an effort to be careful and safe, believe it or not.
And I am really sorry you failed to find the humor in the dinosaurs bit. Personally, I think its one of the funniest things I have ever said.
Lighten up just a wee bit, mom.
Do you really believe all the crap you’re spewing or are you just having fun?
Do you really believe all the crap that all the sheeps baaahh? Why is the voice of the common man generally thought to be more reasonable then that of the man who questions the accepted norm? Maybe I do believe what I say and clearly I am having fun, the nature of my posts reflects this… but now that I have answered your questions, tell me, how many drunk drivers have you personally known that have gotten into a crash? Now, tell me, how many people do you know who were not drunk who have gotten into a crash? Have you been the victim of a drunk driving related accident? The victim of any driving accident? Ever driven while drunk? How close did you come to crashing?
I have reached my own conclusions and not because someone told me what to think, but because I think for myself an I believe that if you cant understand my points here, then perhaps I am wasting my time.
And, furthermore, unless you have driven drunk, then I suppose you probably know little of it. Its like trying to explain what anxiety is all about, without having felt it. Just not possible.
Finally, a victory for reason. Cops take notice: Your days of breaking the law to enforce it might be coming to a close.
I bet the state will keep these charges on his driving record for years to come.
Not after they acquit him, which they will, considering now there is no court admissible evidence of any wrong doing.
This case should be of serious concern to anyone who values their personal liberties. This is a clear cut case of an unconstitutional stop. What concerns me the most is there are 2 judges on the Maine Supreme Court who do not value personal liberties. My statement does not, in any way excuses the actions of Mr. Whitney.
and if the Officer had just let him go and this drunken man ran into you, hurting you and maybe killing your loved one would you feel the same way? The vehicle was already stopped “Willey began to speak with the pedestrians and Whitney started to drive away, at which point Willey told him not to leave because he wanted to verify that neither Whitney nor his passenger were in the accident.” The officer detained him, he did not “stop” him.
Re-read my last sentence.
How much liberty are YOU willing to give up? “Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither” Ben Franklin.
Ben Franklin didn’t live in a world where people try to take advantage of their Liberties as people do today. Just because THIS particular judge overturned the ruling doesn’t mean that it is correct. This was that judge’s opinion on the officer’s right to detain. I believe that the officer had the right, he was looking for a subject, the offender was pulled over on the side of the road and smelled of booze while talking to pedestrians. The officer did not pull him over or stop him..he was already stopped on his own accord. I am willing to give a little on such petty things if it is going to save someone’s life!
Give a little here, give a little there, you NEVER get it back. Soon you have none left. Your reasoning should be disturbing to any who TRULEY believe in freedom and liberty.
If, if, if, if……………
If officer Willy had gone crazy and beaten this man to death with his bare hands people would be upset?
If the can of beer was really a condom? If the car was a pumpkin.
If the officer had not ordered him to stay, and instead tailed him and observed impaired operation, then he could have stopped him legally. As soon as the officer saw the beer can he should have let the driver go so he could stop him again shortly later. Strange but I bet this would have worked… its so easy to give up liberties for a small reduction in risk.
It’s my understanding that regardless of the criminal conviction his license will still be suspended by the secretary of state… isn’t that correct?
Yes he will still lose his license even if your found not guilty or a dismissed oui in Maine administratively you lose your license for failing a breath test and automatically for 9 months if you refuse the breath test lol.
Easy enough to have an appeals hearing at DMV and if the arresting officer doesn’t show up for it you automatically win the appeal.
He did not fail a breath test because legally speaking nothing happened. The court “Vacated” the conviction therefore there was no stop, no breath test, and no contact with police. Unless the lower court chooses to retry (without any evidence) nothing happened.
No kidding…Read the post that we were responding to,lol…. our comments were in reply to a question someone else asked not particularly this case. I am well aware of Maine law and Vacates.
Bet you are. Only a lawyer could prevaricate as well as you.
Nice to see we have one thing in common. Bill O from Fox News =)
Not necessarily; In this case The Law Court vacated the conviction, that means in legal terms nothing happened. If the lower court fails to retry, there is no reason to take Whitney’s license because (legally) there was no stop.
Atta boy!
So if the officer suspected him of drinking – and had seen the open container – but let him go, and the guy then hits and kills someone, what tune would be being sung now?
@ Red… The contact would have been kept hush hush.
Im not a millionaire but MAYBE, PERHAPS, IF I buy just one more lottery ticket I MIGHT win a bunch of money….
See the pattern here?
Conjecture, I hypothesize, is useless.
Fact is, Im not a millionaire and probably never will be.
At least the man didn’t drive home drunk that night.
His 4th Amendment Right was deprived? United States Code, Title 42, Section 1983 – Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights. 4 times the U.S. Supreme Court has found and reaffirmed. Police Officers employed by a Municipal Government are not immune to prosecution under State Immunity Laws. I think it was Bailey vs IL ?? I’ll double check that.
Lock the cop up for kidnapping
It is not about the drunken driving charge.
This is a much bigger issue than any drunken driving charge (which is wrong)
I’t is about the police violating someones 4th amendment right and that is big stuff. The officer should be sued to say the least and thats just a start. He should lose his job and pension and all benifits. For those who think it’s alright , I’ll ask what rights should they take away from you?
When I read the headline I said this has to be officer willey! And sure enough it was…hmm and I do not even live in ellsworth I live in bangor…but I can say this in my line of work I can guarantee you this man TRAMPLES peoples rights over and over again! I am very impressed that Mr page and Mr willey were put in their place! Hey there Mr. Harold page you always have something to comment on..kitty cat got your tounge?
You sound like a person with a grudge or perhaps a lawyer that may have crossed paths with him/them and lost! I am sure that they have better things to do like saving more lives than banter with you. Me.. it is my day off and playing with a ball of yarn such as yourself is quite amusing!
And you sound like a relative of his…lol. your screen name tells me your close to his neighborhood…. and oh ………flattery will get u everywhere ;) and the only person that lost was Shawn willey ;) …I know it hurts but you all will be ok …lol.
What would really be interesting would be seeing if the comments followed the same common thread here if the defendent had been an off duty cop that got off, instead of “Joe Citizen”.
An “off duty cop” wouldn’t have been stopped without a good reason for the stop.
I am all for the Franklin manifesto; Better to let six guilty free rather than imprison one innocent. That includes law enforcement personnel.
He wasn’t pulled over or stopped by this cop, the man was pulled over on the side of the road… please re-read……
Not playing your semantic game. He was “detained” (the coutrt’s word) illegally.
The logic employed by Chief Justice Leigh Saufley is scary: “the ‘minimal’ intrusion to Whitney’s liberty was outweighed by the stop’s potential to provide critical information…” It’s an affirmation of fishing expeditions and that tired and illegal police argument that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t mind being patted down, frisked, felt up, your property searched and otherwise intruded upon.
With so little respect for the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Justices Saufley and Alexander — Maine’s own Thomas and Scalia — belong in another line of work.
Saufley and Alexander are always ready to increase government power, and limit citizens rights.
The people here who seem to feel the end justifies the means would be real comfortable in Putin’s Russia.
When a drunk driver is sent on his way by a
policeman and then kills someone the liberals will cry that the policeman
neglected his duty. Liberals will always be whining; it’s what they do. Thank you officer Willey for doing your job
and getting a drunk off the road.
I agree totally! Officer Willey may have save the occupants of the vehicles lives and maybe yours or mine!
If I had to label myself I’m I bit on the liberal side, but I sy that guys @$$ belongs in jail for DD.
“liberal”….the new N-word!
It looks like the police officer made a mistake here by using his best judgement to make the call. Big deal. He wont be reprimanded or lose anything but the driver sure did lose a lot. I wouldn’t have wanted to sit through all the court time and pay a hefty legal fee to get out anything, particularly an oui. In the end, the lawyer won. The lawyers always win. Now every dead beat drunk in small town ellsworth USA will be calling Jeff Toothaker. I can hear it now…”get me off my OUI, the cop had no right dang it. Remember when you got that Willey kid off?” “Now here is my 5k retainer”.
Lawyer wins, lawyer always wins.
“The stop of a motorist three to four miles from the scene of a single-vehicle accident, at least 90 minutes after the accident occurred, is unlikely to significantly aid an investigation into whether the vehicle’s operator had reported the accident to the proper authorities,” wrote Justice Andrew Mead for the majority.
Well…since it DID result in the arrest of the perp, then I would say Andrew Mead has no idea what he’s talking about.