Maine's Supreme Judicial Court ruled 4-3 on Nov. 12 that a defendant in a Kennebec County drug case did not make the showing needed to claim immunity under the state's Good Samaritan law, affirming a trial court order that denied his pretrial motion to be declared immune from prosecution.
In State of Maine v. Dustin M. Foster, 2026 ME 108, Chief Justice Stanfill wrote for a majority that also included Justices Connors, Lawrence and Douglas. Justice Hjelm, an active retired justice sitting on the panel (listed as "A.R.J." in the opinion), was joined in dissent by Justices Mead and Lipez.
The law, 17-A M.R.S. section 1111-B, gives immunity from arrest or prosecution to a "protected person," including a person experiencing a suspected drug-related overdose, when a medical professional or officer is dispatched "in response to a call for assistance for a suspected drug-related overdose." A defendant can ask a judge before trial to decide immunity. Under the statute, once the defendant has presented evidence to establish immunity, the prosecution must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the grounds for immunity do not apply.
The court's opinion says Foster's girlfriend called 9-1-1 on Feb. 7, 2025, to report that Foster was using drugs and acting violently at their home. Kennebec County Sheriff's deputies found him sweating and appearing to be under the influence of narcotics. He did not need medical help, and the ambulance was canceled. Police told him there was a warrant for his arrest, handcuffed him and found drug paraphernalia and about 15 grams of a white substance in his backpack. He was indicted on one count of unlawful trafficking of scheduled drugs (Class B) and one count of unlawful possession of scheduled drugs (Class C).
After a May 20, 2025, hearing, Judge Daniel Mitchell found that the girlfriend called to report a relapse, not an overdose. The opinion says the call ran more than ten minutes, she described Foster as alert with no change in color, and she never said in the call that he was overdosing. She testified at the hearing that she was worried he was overdosing. The trial court relied on the call itself rather than that later testimony.
The majority agreed with both sides that the defendant carries a "prima facie" burden, defined in the opinion, quoting a 2014 decision, as "the preliminary burden of production of evidence." It then held that the court may reject a defendant's showing unless the evidence compelled a contrary finding. Citing a 2025 decision, State v. Beaulieu, the majority wrote that "it is the content of the call that must reflect the caller's suspicion, although no specific wording is necessary for the call to qualify." A girlfriend's explanation afterward, it said, does not create a genuine dispute about what the call was for. The majority did not decide whether Foster met the statute's other elements.
The dissent called the question "narrow and straightforward": whether the record holds any evidence on each element of the statute. It argued that the review should be de novo, that the trial court made findings it should not have made at the first step, and that the girlfriend's testimony alone met Foster's burden. Hjelm would have vacated the order and sent the case back so the State had to try to disprove immunity by clear and convincing evidence.
Matthew J. Fortin of Capital Region Public Defenders argued for Foster. Attorney General Aaron M. Frey and Assistant Attorney General Darcy Mitchell argued for the State.