## Facts

- On December 24, 1991, around 1:30 a.m., an Old Town police officer observed an unoccupied car in a well-lit parking lot at an elderly housing complex where recent nighttime theft complaints had been reported.
- The officer watched from a nearby location and saw a white pickup truck enter the driveway with a driver (Theodore J. Nelson) and a passenger.
- The pickup backed into a space next to the other vehicle, turned off the engine, and left parking lights on.
- Using binoculars, the officer recognized the passenger as the owner of the nearby car and observed both occupants drink beer from 16-ounce cans over approximately 45–50 minutes.
- The officer observed no unusual appearance or behavior indicating intoxication before the pickup left the lot.
- The passenger exited the pickup and entered his own vehicle; Nelson then drove the pickup out to the street.
- The officer observed nothing unusual about the operation of the pickup, but immediately initiated a traffic stop based solely on the drinking he had observed.
- Nelson was arrested following the stop and charged with operating under the influence (OUI).
- The trial court denied Nelson’s motion to suppress evidence obtained after the stop; Nelson was convicted, and he appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether observing a driver consume a single 16-ounce beer over roughly 45–50 minutes, without erratic driving or other objective indicators of impairment, provides reasonable articulable suspicion to justify an investigatory vehicle stop for OUI.
2. If the stop was unlawful, whether evidence obtained as a result must be suppressed, requiring reversal of the OUI conviction.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (Law Court) vacated the conviction.
- The court held the stop was unlawful because the officer lacked reasonable articulable suspicion that Nelson was operating under the influence or otherwise engaged in criminal activity.
- The court ruled that the motion to suppress should have been granted because the stop was based on a mere hunch, not specific, articulable facts supporting impairment.
- Having resolved the case on suppression grounds, the court did not reach other issues raised on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- A vehicle may be stopped for investigatory purposes only when the officer has reasonable articulable suspicion, grounded in specific and articulable facts and rational inferences, that a crime is being committed.
- Consumption of alcohol, without additional objective evidence suggesting impairment (e.g., erratic driving, traffic violations, or observable physical signs), does not by itself establish reasonable suspicion of OUI.
- Contextual factors such as late hour, location, or prior unrelated complaints may justify surveillance but do not convert otherwise innocent conduct into reasonable suspicion for an OUI stop.
- Evidence obtained as a direct result of an unconstitutional stop is subject to suppression, and a conviction dependent on such evidence cannot stand.

## Conclusion

The court held that an officer’s observation of modest alcohol consumption, absent erratic driving or other objective signs of impairment, does not supply reasonable articulable suspicion for an OUI stop; because the stop was unconstitutional, the resulting evidence had to be suppressed and the conviction was vacated.


State v. Nelson, 638 A.2d 720 (Me. 1994)