State v. Ames

155 A.3d 881

STATE of Maine

v.Wallace W. AMES III

Docket: And–16–172

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Argued: December 13, 2016

Decided: February 7, 2017

Mark J. Peltier, Esq. (orally), Rioux, Donahue, Chmelecki & Peltier, LLC, Portland, for appellant Wallace W. Ames III

Andrew Robinson, District Attorney, Lisa Bogue, Asst. Dist. Atty., and Andrew Matulis, Asst. Dist. Atty. (orally), Prosecutorial District III, Lewiston, for appellee State of Maine

Panel: SAUFLEY, C.J., and ALEXANDER, MEAD, GORMAN, JABAR, HJELM, and HUMPHREY, JJ.

MEAD, J.

[¶ 1] Wallace W. Ames III appeals from a judgment of conviction of burglary (Class C), 17–A M.R.S. § 401(1)(A) (2016), and theft by unauthorized taking or transfer (Class E), 17–A M.R.S. § 353(1)(A) (2016), entered in the trial court (Androscoggin County, Mathews, J. ) on his conditional guilty plea. Ames argues that the court (L. Walker, J. ) erred in denying his motion to suppress statements, made during an interview with police while he was detained in the Androscoggin County Jail awaiting a court appearance for a probation violation on an unrelated charge, because he was not given Miranda warnings prior to what he asserts was a custodial interview. We affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

[¶ 2] Viewed in the light most favorable to support the suppression court's decision, the record on the motion to suppress supports the following facts. See State v. Ntim , 2013 ME 80, ¶ 2, 76 A.3d 370 ; see also State v. Bryant , 2014 ME 94, ¶ 2, 97 A.3d 595. On June 3, 2015, Detective Tyler Michaud of the Lewiston Police Department was assigned to investigate a burglary reported to have occurred at a restaurant in Lewiston on May 29, 2015. During the course of his investigation, he learned that Ames had been an employee at the restaurant and had keys to the building. At that time, Ames was on probation for a domestic violence assault conviction. On June 4, 2015, Ames was arrested on a probation violation arising from a positive drug test, taken into custody, and held at the Androscoggin County Jail.

[¶ 3] On June 8, 2015, Detective Michaud and Detective Carly Conley, also from the Lewiston Police Department, went to the jail to interview Ames about his involvement in the burglary. The officers were not in uniform and not wearing duty belts, and they left their firearms at a secure location when they entered the jail. Their interview with Ames took place in the visitation room, which is a large, well-lit room with windows. A long table with chairs on both sides was located in the middle of the room. During the interview, Ames sat on one side of the table and the officers sat on the other side; Ames and the officers were a few feet apart at a "normal conversational distance." The detectives did not sit between Ames and the door, and there were no obstacles between Ames and the door. There was no one else in the room and no guard at the door. The interview was recorded.

[¶ 4] At the outset of the interview, Detective Conley introduced herself and Detective Michaud and confirmed with Ames that he was currently in jail on a probation violation because his urine tested positive for drugs. She told Ames that "what we want to talk to you about has nothing to do with that," that he was "here on [his] own free will," and that he was free to leave and go back to his cell at any time because jail was his "home" for the time being. She asked Ames if he felt comfortable speaking to them, and Ames said he was "interested in hearing what you have to say." Ames was not given Miranda warnings.

[¶ 5] The detectives mentioned that they had talked to Ames's probation officer and it had seemed like Ames was doing well on probation until he tested positive for drugs. Detective Michaud said that what happens with probation is "not our business right now" and he had "no idea what they're trying to do," but he encouraged Ames to "clear the table" and "put this behind us," so that it doesn't "come[ ] back up to bite you." Detective Michaud told Ames that "there's really no doubt in my mind that you went in and took some money," and encouraged Ames to cooperate, because otherwise, "we're going to end up proving it ... and then what will happen is you'll be back on track with probation and we're going to have to derail you again instead of just addressing it right now and moving forward." Ames continued to deny involvement.

[¶ 6] Ames asked what sentence a theft carries. Detective Michaud explained that it could be a fine, and suggested that from his experience, courts consider whether the theft was related to a drug problem. Ames confessed immediately thereafter, saying, "I did it. It was me." The confession occurred approximately fifteen minutes into the interview. The detectives continued to speak with Ames regarding the details of the crime and some wholly unrelated matters for another fifteen minutes.

[¶ 7] On August 4, 2015, Ames was indicted on one count of burglary (Class C), 17–A M.R.S. § 401(1)(A), and one count of theft by unauthorized taking or transfer (Class E), 17–A M.R.S. § 353(1)(A). On December 7, 2015, Ames filed a motion to suppress the incriminating statements he made during the interview, arguing that he should have been given Miranda warnings because he was in custody at the time of the interview. A hearing on the motion was held on December 30, 2015, at which Detective Michaud testified, and the audio recording of the interview was admitted in evidence. On January 7, 2016, the court denied the motion to suppress.

[¶ 8] On February 10, Ames filed a motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to M.R.U. Crim. P. 41A(d) that the court granted pending resolution of the case at the dispositional conference.

[¶ 9] On February 18, Ames entered a conditional guilty plea to the two charges. He was sentenced to five years' incarceration, with all but six months suspended, with two years of probation on the burglary count and to thirty days in jail, to be served concurrently, on the theft count. See M.R.U. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). The plea was preserved for appeal and conditioned on our review of the motion court's order denying Ames's motion to suppress. On March 3, 2016, the court entered an order on the motion to suppress that included findings of fact and conclusions of law. Ames timely appealed. See M.R. App. P. 2(b)(2)(A) ; 15 M.R.S. § 2115 (2016).

II. DISCUSSION

[¶ 10] Ames argues that he was in custody at the time of the interview and therefore should have been given Miranda warnings prior to being questioned. His primary assertion is that his detention in jail at the time of the interview was a circumstance that created an atmosphere of coercion amounting to custody.

[¶ 11] We ordinarily "review the denial of a motion to suppress for clear error as to factual issues and de novo as to issues of law." State v. Ormsby , 2013 ME 88, ¶ 9, 81 A.3d 336 (quotation marks omitted); see State v. Nadeau , 2010 ME 71, ¶ 15, 1 A.3d 445. "When a ruling on a motion to suppress is based primarily on undisputed facts, it is viewed as a legal conclusion that is reviewed de novo."¹ State v. King , 2016 ME 54, ¶ 14, 136 A.3d 366 (quotation marks omitted). We "will uphold the court's denial of a motion to suppress if any reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court's decision." State v. Kittredge , 2014 ME 90, ¶ 15, 97 A.3d 106 (quotation marks omitted).

[¶ 12] Miranda warnings are necessary only when a defendant is both "in custody" and "subject to interrogation." Nadeau , 2010 ME 71, ¶ 53, 1 A.3d 445 (quotation marks omitted). "Statements made by a person subjected to custodial interrogation who is not first given Miranda warnings are inadmissible against that person at trial." Id. ; see Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 478–79, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). There is no dispute that Ames was subjected to interrogation, so the only issue before us is whether Ames was in custody when he made incriminating statements to the officers. At the suppression hearing, the State had the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Ames was not in custody. State v. Prescott , 2012 ME 96, ¶ 10, 48 A.3d 218.

[¶ 13] "An interrogation is custodial if a reasonable person standing in the shoes of [the defendant] would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." State v. Jones , 2012 ME 126, ¶ 22, 55 A.3d 432 (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). We consider various factors in making this objective determination, 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.

State v. Bryant , 2014 ME 94, ¶ 10, 97 A.3d 595 (quotation marks omitted). These factors are considered "in their totality, not in isolation." Jones , 2012 ME 126, ¶ 22, 55 A.3d 432 (quotation marks omitted).

[¶ 14] Several factors weigh against a determination that Ames was in custody. The suppression court found that only two law enforcement officers were present during the interview, and that they were unarmed and in plain clothes, see Kittredge , 2014 ME 90, ¶¶ 7, 18, 97...