State v. Santos

STATE OF MAINE v. TANYA SANTOS, Defendant

SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-17-2103 SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR-17-3257

Superior Court of Maine

April 5, 2018

STATE OF MAINE

CUMBERLAND, ss

ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Defendant seeks to suppress statements she made to Yarmouth Police Department Detective Paul Martin. Defendant argues that her waiver of her Miranda rights was not knowing and voluntary.¹ For the following reasons, the motion is denied.

FACTS

Defendant was arrested on March 21, 2017. She gathered her medicine, which she is required to take daily. She was transported to the Cumberland County jail and later that evening, she was transported to the Kennebec County jail. She told the jail personnel that she needed her medicine but did not receive it.

According to defendant, because of a prolapsed heart valve, she takes a medicine to prevent fluid from gathering in her heart. If she does not take the medicine, she cannot breathe well and is tired, These symptoms develop within a few hours. She is severely hypoglycemic. If her blood sugar is too low, she becomes lethargic, dizzy, and can become comatose. She takes glucose and if she does not receive that medicine, symptoms can be immediate. She takes stomach medicine daily because she has too much acid in the stomach. If she does not receive this medicine, she cannot eat and she did not eat while incarcerated. She takes a medicine for nerve pain, If she does not receive this medicine, she cannot sleep and feels miserable with her legs feeling as though they are on fire.

Detective Martin was contacted by Lieutenant Perry regarding defendant's having passed counterfeit one hundred-dollar bills on March 20 and 21, 2017. Detective Martin reviewed the reports and arrest warrant for defendant, who was then in custody at the Kennebec County jail. He went to the jail on March 23, 2017 to speak with defendant. He interviewed defendant in a room at the Kennebec County jail. Defendant was in hand cuffs and leg shackles. The door was closed.

The interview was recorded. (Def.'s Ex. 1.) The video shows that Detective Martin explained why he was there and she understood. He said he had to read the Miranda rights to her because they would be talking about crimes. He asked if defendant would speak to him. He told her that he could not make any promises about leniency through the court but he would do what he can and what he says a lot of times goes a bit of a way with the District Attorney. He asked for her date of birth and she responded. Detective Martin then read the Miranda warnings from the form. He asked after each whether defendant understood and she replied that she did. She agreed to speak to him, reviewed the form, and signed it.

Defendant agreed she passed a one hundred-dollar bill at the Circle K in Yarmouth on March 20, 2017. She stated she did not know the bill was not U.S. currency and was not quite sure how she got the bill. She realized the bills were not good the next day when the bills were refused at Hannaford. She then stated with regard to dates that she was a little off because she had not had her medicine for a couple of days, she was hypoglycemic, her sugars were probably low, and she was a little lethargic. She told Detective Martin that she took medicine for hypoglycemia, for her heart, and a diuretic but no illegal drugs.

Defendant told Detective Martin her address, her ex-boyfriend's date of birth, and where her son attended school. She stated she received the bills from her recent tax refund from H & R Block in Topsham. Detective Martin staled that she was not being honest and asked why she would pass another one hundred-dollar bill at Rite Aid on March 21, 2017, after she learned at Hannaford that the bills were not good. She stated she passed the bill at Rite Aid before she went to Hannaford.

When Detective Martin told defendant that she did not receive the bills from a bank, defendant stated that apparently somebody gave her fake money and she had no idea how she received the money. He told her twice that law enforcement had videos of her conduct at the stores. He stated she was being honest about passing the bills because she knew law enforcement had those videos but he did not believe her story about not knowing where the bills came from. Defendant said that was his prerogative. Defendant laughed several times during the interview.

Defendant then stated she was a little bit off, did not feel good, and felt like she would pass out. They needed to get her medicine figured out because she had not received it for two days.

They discussed again where she had passed the bills. She agreed with Detective Martin's dates because she did not have a calendar. She identified the cars she had used.

Finally, they discussed the charges, class B felonies. She said she knew it was not good. She signed and dated the summonses. She then stated she needed sugar.

At the hearing on the motion, defendant did not recall hearing about her rights. She had little recollection about the interview. She remembered being taken to the interview from another building while shackled. She staled that without medicine, she may appear to be "with it" but she is not.

Detective Martin did not ask defendant if she felt well but defendant did not appear to him to be under the influence or experiencing medical issues. She appeared to understand and was not uncomfortable or confused.

At the hearing, Detective Martin could not recall whether she said she was on medicine or she did not have her medicine but she did mention medicine. He also testified that she did not say she thought she would pass out, as the video shows. If she had, he would have stopped the interview. He also would have stopped the interview if she appeared unwell. He did not stop the interview.

ANALYSIS

Waiver of Miranda

In order for defendant's statements made to Detective Martin to be admissible, "the State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) law enforcement officers properly delivered Miranda warnings to the suspect before commencing the interrogation, and (2) the suspect knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the privilege protected by the warnings." State v. Figueroa, 2016 ME 133, ¶ 14, 146 A.3d 427; State v. Lockhart, 2003 ME 108, ¶ 21, 830 A.2d 433; State v. Coombs, 1998 ME 1, ¶ 15, 704 A.2d 387.

Voluntary Statements

In order to find a statement voluntary, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement resulted from the "defendant's exercise of his own free will and rational intellect." State v. Caouette, 446 A.2d 1120, 1123-1124 (Me. 1982). "A confession is voluntary if it results from the free choice of a rational mind, if it is not the product of coerced police conduct, and if under all the circumstances its admission would be fundamentally fair." State v. Mikulewicz, 462 A.2d 497, 501 (Me. 1983). "A statement may be voluntarily made even if the defendant was injured, medicated, or in distress." State v. Lowe, 2013 ME 92, ¶ 22, 81 A.3d 360. The requirement that a statement must be voluntary in order to be admissible "gives effect to three overlapping but conceptually distinct values: (1) it discourages objectionable police practices; (2) it protects the mental freedom of the individual; and (3) it preserves a quality of fundamental fairness in the criminal justice system." Mikulewicz, 462 A.2d at 500.

In determining voluntariness, the court considers the totality of the circumstances, including

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.

State v. McNaughton, 2017 ME 173, ¶ 34, 168 A.3d 807; see also Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 693-94 (1993). "A confession, otherwise freely and voluntarily made, is not vitiatedby a promise of leniency unless such promise was the motivating cause of the confession." State v. Tardiff, 374 A.2d 598, 601 (Me. 1977). False promises of leniency jeopardize the voluntariness of a defendant's statements. See McNaughton, 2017 ME 173, ¶ 36, 168 A.3d 807; State v. Hunt, 2016 ME 172, ¶ 5, 151 A.3d 911; State v. Wiley, 2013 ME 30, ¶¶ 19-25, 61 A.3d 750.

CONCLUSIONS

In this case, the custodial interview between Detective Martin and defendant took place in a room at the Kennebec County jail and lasted 27.56 minutes. Detective Martin read the Miranda warnings from a form and defendant responded after each warning that she understood. Defendant was 50 years old at the time of the...