Two years ago, a woman called police because she suspected that a man pulled over on the interstate in Brunswick was having a medical event.

Police charged the man, Billy Beaulieu, with felony OUI after determining that he was under the influence. But should Beaulieu have been entitled to immunity under the state’s Good Samaritan law, which is meant to protect people who report overdoses to police and those suspected of overdosing?

That’s what Beaulieu’s lawyer asked Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court on Wednesday.

The law was created in 2019 to encourage people to call for help when they believe someone has overdosed by providing immunity from drug-related arrests and prosecution to the person who overdoses, as well as to those who call and render aid. It has been updated more than once and with much debate, including this year to exclude immunity for people charged with operating under the influence.

That change wasn’t in effect when Beaulieu was charged and it can’t apply retroactively to his case.

Beaulieu was charged about a month after a woman asked police to check on a car “parked a little sideways on the left shoulder of the road,” according to court records. She had driven by the vehicle twice in two hours and later said in a statement that she had been concerned about a “medical event.”

Beaulieu pleaded not guilty in October 2023 and asked that the charge be dismissed, citing immunity under the Good Samaritan law. But Superior Justice Thomas McKeon felt the woman’s concerns about a “medical event” weren’t specific enough to trigger immunity, which McKeon said legally applies only to overdose-related concerns.

It is unclear whether Beaulieu was actually overdosing, but police did determine Beaulieu had been using drugs. They found methamphetamine on him and noted his eyes were dilated and his speech was slurred.

Lawyers for Beaulieu and the state were divided Wednesday on whether McKeon made the right choice.

Defense lawyer Max Coolidge argued his interpretation should have been broader. He said in court that people may be dissuaded from calling police if they know it might result in someone else being arrested, defeating the purpose of the law.

“I think we need to interpret this statute as broadly as possible to save as many lives as possible under this,” Coolidge said. “We want a society where people trust 911 or go into the police to be able to get assistance for another person without fear for themselves, or the person they’re concerned about, being arrested and potentially charged with a crime.”

The Cumberland County District Attorney’s Office warned the court that under a broad reading of the Good Samaritan law, “absurd consequences would ensue.”

“The plain meaning of the statute is clear,” student attorney Clio Barr argued for the district attorney. “The immunity provision is only triggered if a law enforcement officer or medical professional is dispatched to the location of a medical emergency in response to a call for assistance for a suspected drug-related overdose.”

LEGISLATIVE INTENT

The justices spent much of their time Wednesday questioning both attorneys on legislative intent, and what lawmakers wanted when they enacted the Good Samaritan law as it was in place in late 2022.

Coolidge advocated for broad interpretation because he said lawmakers’ main intent was to save lives.

“The statute at issue in this case is intended to save lives, and it only does so if … concerned citizens trust it to work,” Coolidge said.

Barr argued that if an officer doesn’t have any context of an overdose – which Officer Patrick Scott didn’t have, according to his police report – the immunity doesn’t apply.

Barr also argued that the Legislature’s decision to exclude OUIs from immunity earlier this year speaks to the purpose of the law, even if it can’t be applied retroactively.

“It further underscores the fact that the legislative intent behind this was not to create this blanket immunity provision, but to be very narrow and precise in its application of when and to whom immunity applies,” she said.

Coolidge said this year’s change shouldn’t be given any weight at all.

In a way, these arguments mirrored the same that defense attorneys and prosecutors had earlier this year when the Legislature decided to exclude OUIs.

In testimony to lawmakers, Shira Burns, who directs the Maine Prosecutors’ Association, cited two cases in which drivers had overdosed and passed out behind the wheel.

One wasn’t charged and never had her license suspended, Burns said, because it was determined based on the 911 callers’ report she qualified for immunity. The other driver was charged, Burns said, because an off-duty officer reported him first for “erratic driving.”

Walter McKee, writing to lawmakers on behalf of the Maine Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, said it would defeat the law’s original purpose.

He said lawmakers enacted the Good Samaritan law after “significant testimony” about the need to encourage people to call for help who would otherwise fear prosecution.

“This bill erodes that very protection, and if passed would go in the opposite direction from trying to keep people from dying,” McKee wrote. “Instead, it would put back in place the precise problem when it comes to someone calling to get help for someone who was overdosing.”