Opinion
CR-22-4151
10-18-2023
STATE OF MAINE v. GREGORY TURNER
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
SUSAN B. DRISCOLL, JUDGE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET
This matter came before the Court for hearing on September 18, 2023 on Defendant's Motion to Suppress pursuant to M.R.U. Crim. P. 41A. Defendant was represented by Attorney Robert Levine. Cumberland County Assistant District Attorney Glenn Barnes appeared for the State. The parties were afforded the opportunity to present evidence and testimony on all issues before the Court. The Court heard testimony from Detective Eugene Gallant of the Windham Police Department. A recording of the interaction with the Defendant was admitted without objection.
Defendant contends he was subjected to a custodial interrogation without being advised of his Miranda rights and that the recorded statements by Defendant were not voluntary. Defendant moves to suppress all statements made by Defendant to the police officers. For reasons set forth below, his motion is denied.
Material Facts
On March 10,2022, Detectives Eugene Gallant and Brandon Ladd of the Windham Police Department appeared unannounced at the home of Gregory Turner ("the Defendant") in Waterford, Maine at around 5:15 pm. They were in plain clothes consisting of shirt, tie, and jacket. They wore their side arms, covered by their jackets.
The detectives knocked on the front door. The Defendant answered and invited them in. Detective Gallant's initial words were that they "needed" to speak to him, and he informed the Defendant their conversation would be recorded.
As adduced through cross-examination, before turning on the recorder, Detective Gallant told the Defendant he "needed" to speak to him and to record their conversation.
When the recording begins, the detective explains in a conversational tone that they are doing background on an incident that had occurred. The Defendant interrupts to ask if it is about the church. The detective asks if he knows anything about it. The Defendant then speaks for over five minutes providing background on what he knows about an allegation that had been made against him. The Defendant understood he was the focus of the investigation.
After about five and a half minutes into the Defendant's presentation. Detective Gallant interjects to tell the Defendant that he failed to mention when they started that they are in his house, that he did not have to talk to them, and that if he wants them to leave, they will leave. The Defendant indicates no, they do not have to leave. The interview then proceeds for more than an hour in the Defendant's home. Around 13 minutes into the recording, the Defendant offers Detective Ladd a seat on a hassock.
After about 20 minutes, during which the Defendant does most of the talking, the Defendant volunteers that his daughter is a lawyer and that she had told him that if anyone came to question him, he should not talk, and that this was because anything he said could be used against him. The Defendant then says he did not have a problem with what he had said and that he was not afraid to tell them just what he told them. He proceeds to continue talking and to respond to the detectives questions.
About 30 minutes into the recorded discussion, the detectives become more pointed in their questioning. Detective Gallant tells the Defendant that, based on his experience, he is certain the allegation made by a little girl about an incident in the church is true, that the Defendant's explanation is inconsistent with what the girl said, and that this is his opportunity to clear things up. Even in response to a more confrontational tone, the Defendant is calm and respectful and largely expresses his incomprehension and denial of the allegation. The Defendant believes he is targeted because he is a registered sex offender. Detective Gallant tells him they are there because of the little girl's allegation, not because he is on the registry.
After an hour and half elapses, approximately 94 minutes into the interview, Detective Ladd asks the Defendant if he is willing to take a polygraph. The Defendant asks him what a polygraph is. The Defendant says he would take a polygraph if they wanted him to, but then says he should probably get a lawyer. The detectives tell him that is his choice. The Defendant says he did not want to upset them, and that he had tried to be as upfront and truthful as he could be during their interview. The detective then terminates the interview.
Throughout the encounter, the Defendant is rational and responsive. Even when the detectives become more aggressive, the Defendant is cooperative and forthcoming. The Defendant acknowledges at several intervals that he is aware he does not have to talk to the detectives but is choosing to do so.
Legal Analysis
A. General Principles
"The exclusionary rule ... excludes from a criminal trial any evidence seized from the defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Fruits of such evidence are excluded as well." State v. A leers, 2021 ME 43, ¶ 40 citing Aiderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 171 (1969)(citations omitted.). "The exclusionary rule 'is a prudential doctrine created by th[e] [United States Supreme] Court to compel respect for constitutional guaranty.'" Id. citing Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229, 236 (2011)(citations omitted). '"The exclusionary rule exists to deter police misconduct' and 'favor[s] exclusion only when the police misconduct is most in need of deterrence - that is, when it is purposeful or flagrant.'" Id. at ¶ 43 citing Utah v. Streiff, 579 U.S., 136 S.Ct. 2056, 2063 (2016).
B. Whether the Defendant Was In Custody During the Interview
"A person who is in custody and subject to interrogation must be advised of the rights referred to in Miranda v. Arizona in order for statements made during the interrogation to be admissible against [him] as part of the State's direct case at trial." State v. Bryant, 2014 ME 94, ¶ 9 (citations omitted). "Custodial interrogation" is defined as "'questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.'" State v. Higgins, 2002 ME 77¶ 12, 796 A.2d 50 citing State v Michaud, 1998 ME 251 ¶ 4 (other citations omitted.). "A defendant is 'in custody' if subject to either (a) a formal arrest; or (b) a 'restraint on freedom of movement [to] the degree associated with a formal arrest." Id. (citation omitted). The standard is "whether a reasonable person, standing in the defendant's shoes, would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." Id. In making that determination, the court considers various factors, viewed in their totality including:
(1) The locale where the defendant made the statements;
(2) The party who initiated the contact;
(3) The existence or non-existence of probable cause to arrest (to the extent communicated to the defendant);
(4) Subjective views, beliefs, or intent that the police manifested to the defendant, to the extent they would affect how a reasonable person in the defendant's position would perceive his or her freedom to leave;
(5) Subjective views or beliefs that the defendant manifested to the police, to the extent the officer's response would affect how a reasonable person in the defendant's position would perceive his or her freedom to leave;
(6) The focus of the investigation (as a reasonable person in the defendant's position would perceive it);
(7) Whether the suspect was questioned in familiar surroundings;
(8) The number of law enforcement officers present;
(9) The degree of physical restraint placed upon the suspect; and
(10) The duration and character of the interrogation.Id. at ¶ 13; see also State v Bryant, 2014 ME 94, ¶¶ 9,10.
In this case, there is no dispute the Defendant was subject to interrogation and no dispute that the Miranda warnings were not given. The question for the court is whether he was in custody when the interview/interrogation occurred.
The interview was conducted in the familiar surroundings of the Defendant's own home by two plainclothes detectives. One of the detectives informed the Defendant that talking to them was voluntary and that they would leave at any time if he asked. The Defendant invited the police officers into his home and did most of the talking in a cooperative and respectful manner. He offered them a seat. No physical restraint was threatened or used. Weapons were not brandished.
The Defendant largely knew why the officers were there and that he was the focus of their investigation. He never manifested any belief that he was not free to terminate the interview and ask the officers to leave, and the police never manifested any view or belief that a reasonable person could construe as an inability to terminate the interview and ask them to leave. Even when the officers became more assertive in their questioning and made clear that they considered the allegation against him to be credible, the Defendant manifested a desire to cooperate and answer the detectives' questions. His overall respectful and conversational demeanor did not change.
There was no point at which a reasonable person standing in the Defendant's shoes would have felt that he was not free to terminate the interview and ask the officers to leave. A consideration of the totality of the circumstances establishes the Defendant was not in custody at any point during their interaction. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to suppress based on lack of Miranda warnings is denied.
C. Whether the Defendant's Statements Were Voluntary
The State bears the burden of proving voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Bryant, supra, at ¶ 15. "To be voluntary, a confession must be the free choice of a rational mind, fundamentally fair, and not a product of coercive police conduct." Id. at ¶ 16 (citation omitted). To determine voluntariness, the Court considers the totality of circumstances including:
[B]oth external and internal factors, such as: the details of the interrogation; duration of the interrogation; location of the interrogation; whether the interrogation was custodial; the recitation of Miranda warnings; the number of officers involved; the persistence of the officers; police trickery; threats, promises or inducements made to the defendant; and the defendant's age, physical and mental health, emotional stability and conduct.Id. citing State v Sawyer, 2001 ME 88, ¶ 9,772 A.2d 1173.
As set forth above, the interview/interrogation took place in a familiar, noncustodial setting, namely the Defendant's home. The Defendant's age, physical and mental health were not factors in the interaction. The interview lasted an hour and half due largely to the Defendant's lengthy monologues rather than to repeated questioning. Under the circumstances, the detectives were not overly persistent, and their questioning did not rise to the level of trickery, threats, promises or inducements.
Throughout the interview, the Defendant displayed an eagerness to tell his understanding of events and his side of the story. The detectives clearly informed the Defendant five minutes into the 90+ minute interview that it was voluntary, and they would leave at any time if he wanted. Halfway through the interaction the Defendant acknowledged he was aware he did not have to talk to them and that what he said could be used against him. He elected to proceed anyway, further expressing that he stood by what he had previously said.
Even considering that Detective Gallant initially used the phrase that they "needed" to talk to the Defendant, the totality of the circumstances, including the timing and location of the interaction, the number of officers and their attire, and the overall politeness and friendliness of the interaction, establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant's statements were the free choice of a rational mind, were fundamentally fair, and not a product of coercive police conduct. Accordingly, the State Defendant's motion to suppress based on voluntariness is denied.
The clerk shall incorporate the following entry upon the criminal docket: Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress.