Opinion
AROCD-CR-2022-30337
07-17-2023
STATE OF MAINE v. DANIEL CARR
ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS
A hearing on the Defendant's motion to suppress was scheduled for May 9, 2023. The Defendant was present in the courthouse and his attorney, Stephen Smith, Esq., participating by ZOOM. The State was represented by Assistant District Attorneys Matthew Hunter and Amanda Bridges. The parties agreed to a stipulated record consisting of the audio recording of an interview of the Defendant on 10/22/2021 and the Maine State Police Continuation Report (event #213054850). The court indicated that a decision would be deferred for 35 days, and an evidentiary hearing may be conducted if the court deemed it necessary or if requested by the State. No such request was filed within 35 days of the original hearing date. At the court's instruction, the matter was passed to another jurist. After a period of time with no action on the file, ultimately this file was referred to the undersigned. This court has reviewed the record submitted and issues its decision as follows:
The Defendant was indicted by the Aroostook County Grand Jury on June 9,2022, with the charge of Possession of Sexually Explicit Materials, Class C, 17-A M.R.S.A. §284(1)(C). Through his motion to suppress, Defendant seeks to suppress any statements made by him to law enforcement officers on October 22, 2021 during an interview conducted at his home in Oakfield, contending that the statements were not voluntarily made.
Findings of Fact
On October 22, 2021, Detective Taylor Bagley of the Maine State Police (Bagley) went to 12 Norman Street in Oakfield to serve a search warrant. Accompanying Bagley were several other Detectives, Special Agents, and Troopers. The Defendant exited the home to speak with the officers. He was patted down for weapons by Bagley and given a copy of the search warrant. In talking with the Defendant, Bagley acknowledged that he was there with "a ton of cops" and explained that was due to the presence of a large number of children at the residence. Bagley explained to the Defendant that he was not under arrest, that he was free to leave at any time, and that he did not have to speak with the officers. Bagley invited the Defendant to speak with him in his vehicle, due to the fact that it was raining outside. The Defendant sat in the front seat of the car and engaged in a conversation with Bagley. During this conversation, Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent Chuck Ainsworth was seated in the backseat of the vehicle.
Once in the vehicle, Bagley again reminded the Defendant that he was free to leave whenever he wanted, and he did not have to speak with the officers. Bagley made clear to the Defendant that they were merely at the investigation phase and trying to figure out what was going on at that location related to internet access to child pornography. At one point during the encounter, the Defendant exited the vehicle to chase a dog that ran out of the house. After dealing with the dog, Bagley invites the Defendant to return to the vehicle. The Defendant decided to have a cigarette outside of the vehicle.
While the Defendant was having a cigarette, Bagley proceeds to provide the Defendant with information obtained by law enforcement by internet service providers related to access from his home. The conversation continued and Bagley pressed the Defendant for more information related to internet access at the home. At approximately 17 minutes into the encounter, Bagley asks the Defendant to "jump in [to the vehicle], I want to show you what I got." The Defendant voluntarily gets back in the vehicle and Bagley shows the Defendant a sampling of images and providing further detail about what information law enforce already had related to this investigation.
At this point in the encounter, the discussion became an interrogation. Bagley became increasingly assertive, pleading with the Defendant for him to help them figure out what is going on and tell them the truth about his internet usage related to child pornography. Most of the discussion involved only Bagley and the Defendant. At times Ainsworth asked some questions, but his tone was significantly more courteous and gentler. The Defendant makes several inculpatory statements in response to the press for information.
The entire encounter lasted approximately an hour and fifty minutes, but after one hour and thirty-two minutes, the interview is essentially over. The officers acted as though they received all that they thought they would from this encounter and did not interrogate the Defendant further. At this point, the tone used by Bagley is far less courteous, Bagley informs the Defendant that all of the children are being removed. Bagley also calls the Defendant a coward and expresses frustration with him for being evasive or less than fully truthful, in Bagley's opinion. The officers try to get the Defendant to leave and head down the road to his mother's place, but the Defendant elects to stay and speak briefly with the Department of Health and Human Services caseworker before leaving the property.
At the very end of the encounter, after being insulted about the deplorable conditions of his home, the Defendant asks, "am I free to go now?" Bagley responds, "you have always been free to go." The encounter concludes with the Defendant leaving the property, not under arrest. At the time the Defendant leaves the property, it is clear that the Defendant is the focus of the investigation and law enforcement has significant evidence against him, including the inculpatory statements noted above. At no point in the encounter did any law enforcement officer provide the Defendant with Miranda warnings.
Voluntariness
The Defendant contends that his statements to law enforcement officers, given the overall situation, were not voluntarily made and were not the free choice of a rational mind. The court must "assess voluntariness by examining both internal and external factors to determine whether a defendant's statements are the product of the free choice of a rational mind, and not a product of coercive police conduct; and whether, under all the circumstances, the admission of the statements would be fundamentally fair." State v. Athayde, 2022 ME 41, P22, 277 A.3d 387 (Citing, State v. Dodge, 2011 ME 47, ¶ 12,17 A.3d 128). The State must prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt to satisfy the Maine Constitution. Id. at P27 (Contrasting the standard under the U.S. Constitution of preponderance of the evidence).
In State v. Dodge, 2011 ME 47 ¶ 11 and 12,17 A.3d at 128, the Law Court explained:
Tins assessment of voluntariness is based on the totality of the circumstances, and includes both external and internal factors, such as:
1. the details of the interrogation;
2. duration of the interrogation;
3. location of the interrogation;
4. whether the interrogation was custodial;
5. the recitation of Miranda warnings;
6. the number of officers involved;
7. the persistence of the officers;
8. police trickery;
9. threats, promises or inducements made to the defendant; and
10. the defendant's age, physical and mental health, emotional stability, and conduct.
Interrogation
The encounter was initiated by law enforcement officers executing a search warrant. The interview took place at the home of the defendant, inside of and standing outside of the officer's vehicle. The entire interview lasted approximately one hour and fifty minutes. At the outset, the Defendant was informed that he did not have to speak with the officers. The Defendant was not in custody, and he was repeatedly told that he was free to go anytime. There was no physical restraint placed upon the Defendant at any time during the encounter. The Defendant was not provided Miranda warnings in any form at any time before or during the interview. There were two officers involved in the questioning, but there were a "ton of cops" on the scene. At the outset, Bagley explained that they were merely trying to get to the bottom of what was happening regarding the access to child pornography from the home and no charging decisions had been made. Bagley was cordial during most of the interview but did exert pressure on the Defendant by way of expressing frustration regarding the Defendant's evasive answers. Bagley continued to press the Defendant for the "100% truth." However, "neither a law enforcement officer's 'generalized and vague suggestions that telling the truth will be helpful to a defendant in the long run, nor mere admonitions or exhortations to tell the truth, will factor significantly into the totality of the circumstances analysis.'" State v. Annis, 2018 ME 15, P14,178 A.3d 467,472, (Citing, State v. Hunt, 2016 ME 172, ¶ 23,151 A.3d 911 (citations omitted) (quotation marks omitted).
There were one or two questions of the Defendant after the conclusion of the interview from an unidentified officers related to other internet devices.
Ainsworth was very cordial and friendly during the interview and did not in any way pressure the Defendant. There was no police trickery. The Defendant was forty years old at the time of the interview. There was no evidence that the Defendant was not in good health. The Defendant was calm and collected during the encounter. There were no threats, promises, or inducements made to the Defendant. During the course of the interview, the focus of law enforcement officers narrowed right in on the Defendant, and that was clear to him by the questions and his responses to those questions. The Defendant was never placed in custody or charged with any offense. The Defendant's inquiry about whether he was free to go at the very end of the recording was in not in the context of an inquiry as to whether he had to talk to these officers, but in the context of after having confessed to his activities in viewing child pornography on the internet, was he still free to go? At the conclusion of the interview, he was free to go and did leave the property on his own.
The circumstance suggestive of involuntariness were the lack of Miranda warnings, the number of officers present and the persistence of Bagley. All other circumstances suggest that the statements were indeed voluntary and the product of the Defendant's rational mind, Based on the totality of the circumstances, the court finds that the State has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant's statements were voluntarily made during the interview at his home on October 22, 2021.
The Defendant's motion to have the statements from the October 22, 2021 interview suppressed based on a lack of voluntariness is hereby DENIED.
The entry shall be: For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED .