Law Court Rejects Rights of ATV Drivers

August 11, 2009 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact MCLU 774-5444

In a 4-3 decision today, the Maine Law Court rejected the constitutional arguments of an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) driver who was stopped by a game warden without suspicion.  The Maine Civil Liberties Union Foundation, which was amicus curiae in the case, expressed disappointment in the decision but found consolation in two places: the strongly-written dissent of Justice Silver (joined by Justices Mead and Gorman) and the newly-passed legislation that tightens the rules for game warden stops.

“The Fourth Amendment protects our right to be left alone,” said Zachary Heiden, Legal Director of the MCLU and author of the organization’s amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief.  “Today, a minority on the Law Court recognized that this right continues as a vital principle in defining the relationship between people and government.”

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Clifford, held that it was necessary for game wardens to be allowed to stop ATV drivers, even if the warden has no reason to think that the driver has done anything wrong.  That is not the rule for automobiles, for example, and the police are generally only allowed to make a stop when they have “reasonable suspicion” that a law has been broken.  In his dissent, Justice Silver took issue with this distinction.

The following quotes were taken from Justice Silver’s dissent:

“[The Court’s decision] is one that flouts the Fourth Amendment rights of ATV drivers and sends a message to Maine citizens and the Legislature that this Court tolerates regulations that plainly infringe upon individuals’ Fourth Amendment liberties."

“An individual does not relinquish his expectation of privacy or his constitutional rights simply because he is behind the wheel of an ATV rather than a car or truck.  There must be a state interest that sufficiently justifies the intrusion.”

The past Spring, the Governor signed into law an amendment to the game-warden statute requiring that future stops be justified by “reasonable and articulable suspicion”—the same standard that governs car stops and the standard argued for in this case by the MCLU.  The MCLU also advocated in the legislature for passage of the new law, which was sponsored by Representative John Martin (D-Eagle Lake) and which passed by a vote of 125 to 19 in the House and a unanimous vote in the Senate. The new law is P.L. 2009, Ch. 389 §1.  This change mean today’s ruling does not set the standard for game warden authority.  Unfortunately, the ruling still stands as guidance on the broader question of the right to privacy.

“Justice William O. Douglas once wrote that the dissenting opinion is ‘as true to the character of our democracy as of speech itself,’ said Shenna Bellows, Executive Director of the MCLU.  “We hope that, in time, the views expressed in today’s dissenting opinion will gain the support of a majority of the Law Court.”

The full decision in State of Maine v. Brent McKeen, 2009 ME 87, can be found on the Law Court’s website.

###