Maine V. Alvarado

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

r 0 ..;710~ STATE OF MAU'\ffi CL'MBERLA..'\TI, ss ' - ' - ,.~, ·-~·~o. Cl O:C_.-: STATE OF :>vlt\INE ZUlS ~~IJ ' ·~ ' L SUPERIOR COL~T CRTI\fll",;ALACTION DOCKET NO. CR·l4-6647 ;E ss NDM-OMYJ~O/-f'! -15 cc •J,~FICE 21 Prl12 59 ORDER ONDEFENDAJ\TS MOTIOX TO SUPPRESS CLEYIE:-.JTE ALVARADO, Defendant Heating on defendant's motion to suppress was held January 13, 2015. Defendar,t argues his due process rights were violated and his statements were not voluntary. For the following reasons, the motwn ts derued. Brunsw1ck Pollee Department Dctecbve Kenneth Bailey has served as School Resource Officer for Brunsv.ick High School for ten years. On 5/14/14, Amanda Faith appeared at Detective Baliey's office Y..ith a fnend and asked to speak to him. During bs investigation of the allegations, Detective Batley took notes when speaking to people and maintained "" ongomg report on h!s computer. B<!lley was lUlable to contact defend~nt Detective for more than one month because ddendant was out of the state for work. Detective Batley finally contacted defendant by phone and said allegations had been made that should be discussed. Defendant agreed to go to the pollee stati(>n to speak to Detec';ivc Bailey. On July L 2014, a few days after the phone conversation, defendant arrived alone at -;he police statwn just before 5:00 p.!:'.. Ddective Bailey and defenda•1t ~ain iobby. Detective Bailey was in plain clothes. He did not r~call spok~ ir. the whether he had a weapon. lie asked Lf defendant wanted to go to an interview room and defendar.t :eplied, "sure." They went to the mteniew room, wh:ch measures a few feet VY1de by a few feet long. When Detective Bailey closeci the door, 1-_e told defendant 6e door was dosed only for privacy and defendant was free :o leave. The tvm sat approximately three feet from each other. /ll::hough the Bru_"'lswick Police Department has the capacity to record mterviews, this interview was not recorded. Detective Baiiey told defendant Amanda had made allegations regardmg inappropriate conduct at a bowling alley, and the Detective wanted to talk about 6e allegations. Detective Batley read the /0iranda warnings from the Brunswick Police Deparbnent sheet. (State's Ex. A.) Ddendant understood his rights and Det<Octivc Bailey checked the boxes on the sheet, indicating defendant replied "yes" when asked if he understood each paragraph. Defendant agreed to speak to Detective Bailey and signed the sheet, as did DetecTive Bailey. The happened. conver~al:!on lasted ten to 5.ft~en minutes. Detective Bailey asked what He then asked if defendant would prepare a written statement. The Detective stated the btatement did not have to be written at that time and defendant could take the form with him. statement was completed. Defendant said h"' would be in contact when the When the statement was not returned, Dctccbve Bailey called defendant. Defenda:1t said he did not have bme but he would complete the statement. Detechve Bailey never received the written statement. Detecb.ve Bailey called defendant agam a.."1d asked lum to go to the police station. At the ~tation, Detemve Bailey said b.E' h~d enough m:formahon and su:amonsed defendant. Throughout the enb.rety of h:.s dealing., w1th de~endant, Detective Bailey believed defendant understood what the Detective was saymg. Defendant's demeanor w~s "perfec~y Hne" and he s~owed no adverse emotions. There was no indication ddendant did not want lo speak or felt pressured to say anything. Defendant understood his ;'v[i,-anda ngl-,ts and agreed to waJve them. CUKLLSIOi'<S \'oluntariness Defendant argues his statements were :-tot voluntary. In order to find a statement voluntary, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doc:bt that the statL'men!: resulted from the "defendant's exerC:se of his own free \\oil] and rational intellect." Stat~ v. Caouette 446 A.2d 1120, 1123-24 (Me. 1982). "'A confession ts voluntary if it results from the free choice of a raTional mind, tf it is not a product of coercive police conduct, and Cf under all the circwnstances its admiS&ion would be fundamentally fair."' State·"-' M1kulew1CZ 462 A.2d 497, 501 (Me. 1983). The reqllll"ement that a statement must be vohmtary in order to be admissible ""gives effect to three overlapping but conceptually chstinct values: (1) it discourages objecTionable uolice practices; (2) tt protects the mental freedom of the indtvidual; and (3) tt preserves a quality of fundamental faimess in the crimmal justice system." l(j, at 500. Although the interview was not recorded, the testimony of Detective Bailey was credible wtth regard to his ;nl<:rac:ion w;th ddendant. There was no coeraon. Defendant understood what was haoperung and what was said, waived his .1\!lranda warnings, and chose how to proceed. On this record, based on the totahty of the arcumst~nces, the State hab proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's statem,·nt:s were voluntary. See State v. Sawy<-'T, 2001 :\1E 85, ~l 9, 772 A.2d 1173. D1.:e Process Defendant also argues his nght to d1;e process was somehow violated but did not articulate any ba~is for that argumcr.t. Defendant agreed his waJver of his Miranda rights was val:d. When a vwlat:ton of the ri_ght to due process is argued, the procedures used by the poLce arc reviewed ''to dete'1r.1ne i£ the conduct 'offends :he comcnun.ity's sense of Justice, decency, a.TJd bir ?lay.'" ;ita.~ v. Bavocs~ 2001 !VfE 141, 'J 7, 784 A.2d 27 (s_uot:ing )\.obcrts v. Stak, 48 F3d 12.S7, 1291 (ht Gr. 1995)). A detenrun~tio:'1 of whether state action violates a defendant's right to due process involves consideration of "(1) t."te private en-oneouF iY~terest depriv~tion l:."tat wil: be afi~cted bv the State's action; (2) the risk of an of that prlvate mterest along w',t.~ the probable utility of substitute or added safeguards, and (3) the government's ir.terest in adh<Oring to the existent procedure.'' 2tate v. eVIdence in this c~se Co~ 1999 !V'!E 123, '!! 12, 736 A.2d 262. Thert is no of any violation of defendant's right to due process. The entry 1S The Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED. Date: January 15, 2015 , "ancy Mills Jusl1ce, Supermr Court :R I ~ CN~.L D~CS:O::' C:JME~R:.AN~, CLO!CE!ITE J 0 arr_~{-E Docket ALV'"'-'= N~ ss. CI_'MCD<R-20:4 06640 S"C~EET DOCKET RECORD ·:·•JPSHAM '-!E OlJ" LECNl,R:; SfiAFCN ESQ "C' 2<3 ,._::< -~LCJPRN 01'~"BT ME 042:0 .O'l; kHT~:~ED ,-,_ing C·ocu'""'-" flLnJ Lat.~, 08,2:,'.•1:0 CRIM:~AL CQMe'-AI~T "'25/20C·l Charge ( s) 1 UNLAWFUL SEXUAL TOUCHING Seq 9308 BAILEY 17-A 05/11/2014 BRUNSWICK Class D 260 (1) (A) 1' 2 ASSAULT Seq 8382 17-A I BRU 05/11/2014 BRUNSWICK Class D 207 (1) (A) 1' BAILEY I ' BRU Docket Events' C•,/08i)C'C4 c_,~rle(s: 1,2 TRAN&C3~ H"MANE>IT TF.ANSF"" E~I ~N 10100,'20" ~l C·< ~R-'NSFH""E~ CAEE S.,"N]OTNC :CCR::' ~R:MIN~.L FIL,NG DCCL"MENT N~·T::E ~0 ~f.RTIES, ~-A.-\I•'TD C~~e:.AIN~ ;<f.~ WESDCCR2·l.41JQ459 OILEL ~N Q91;<e,20H CCL'Ni'R: :h;cg~ •, '" ' 1 2 ,;6ARBC ''~"-AIC»M~m Party:s; C:2Mhti:CE ~-LVA.'-"_--,~ ~ETAHiE~ ATTORNE,. "o~~c.e_, "AC'!'D QU "f>;,;cl4 EN''''RCD C>i CS '2.;._•JC4 '?0.'lfo3L s~-'"'~' ct_a'""'''' 1,2 ?:NO;rNG PER"J,'.N;··~T ~I'..'\NSF8H I''<Al!SFERRO~ C~ 00·, 0312•)_-> CID1C~ 11;._0/2•E• Ct.arge(s.' C"-A.'!S~El' "~~SA CR.-'CO 1,? CC;<l>l,.-.,.;ENT 'l"AN&?E?. H'C'U f'Y .'>m<YER- 3=-->.CR ASS"T_'\N::' .CI Pag? 1 ,.;~K oO 3 C~UR~ CN H•/;J;/20C< CL6>!3NT~ ~"YI'J',- .'L.if•\C'P.DC <OR- 2 L'- -006 DOCR>1' CO'O~•"Ol4 Ch3cge:s: r~HL 2 - ~G'C:CE JURY TRIAl ~C i~ "~o~ Ku ~•\RTE5;CSL''03L ~:,?c,·:·J·CKA:. I0''09,20C< HEARBC'- h'OTICE OC<iELCLEL >"JR •02/00/)"lS al 0' :;o o 1l CON_·,~E,CO ~C'l'LCE S"-.'1": 'J~ C210''oc·· ::'C F,.R,EStC0C:NSEL MCTIO-" FOF LI£C') 0 IERY F:~OI) 3Y DEPENDANT OK l21:8/2Cl4 12/18120[4 'DCI~N -r·;- "CT:CO p_;R~:B~ICO:JNSE~ 0T:-iER ~CTT~N ,-IL~~ >Y LEFENJOJ\N" ~~- 12':,,:•0C4 17/l0,20l'• MQTIC-" MCT:0N eOR OR-"P•\k,>T:O" QF "-"'PORT O" lN,JlJRIES l<,'l3f2C11 ~EA.>.:NG- '!"<) O~HD MDCION SCHSL-l:r.Rr• FOR ·0:,1}/2015 ac_ i)C,CO p.m. JNC".AR~ED eXCLUDE l"ll9o201< ;-BA.'l~"G- ~~NWCC ~:SP03l'I'CJ~AL on RGGm ~C. 1 _ :CN>'>:REl'CE H~LJ] ~N l21l8,'20:4 .JUDGE ;>,Hurney, ~A :CE~TOR A''~ PILED S~T ~"·'R:"c H~J\Hi~ ~OTION •·c:s N"-.~:-l l-03 15 Nl' CoC·C• p_M WILL :.r";·:· 1 PARTIES NQ·;·,-~n l,'C -·OURS. TC· SUPPRESS !;'l'iCCEM,I>:CC II!·LD ~N C1 1 L,,'COC5 "'-·''"!~~ vC'LH ""'"'~AK Defendomt e·resenL ;n ~A!-"~ '~R Il'FCR.•:."G ~~E COJ~T THAr N[•;'OR.'IIY TS ~GIKG FCR"A.'UO W:TF' ,"(T:Cr< ~0 SL"PCRE3S ,-,ND ANT::nm·;cs ~A ACKERI'A'! ~E,.IFER r1CT:OJ<O 6220 :~J ,,x "CeiCEP. MILEY CF RO "CRT :CK~ Ccu~l 3:28-c,;-.-s ~EST!MC·Nv 3:•J4 IO'~CX _ NL;E~ .'-DA t<C•L'CCNS -""-liG~_N NOC' AV~.:~AEJ,>: ~Ol':~N >:C'"E E "Xl >:On~~ CCI,./)LHO ~OCJC·N ~ANCY ~CT.CN ~C MIL!,~ -.,l4,00:o HSARL'-l<' CR NC TO EUPPHSS ETA~>:ML>NT ~--EN Sl'9_onss S~_,r_,MCNT :mD~k AD'I:SE~?'''' ~N ;;C~ LISC~VE~ CO>I'J'"'UED """"'of; 0~ L'-"'~E ~C ~.- 'T A SG3MIT'.'EL JUS~:C_-- -~CY-:I~' :" ~I"'-O''E~Y, ·0: '13 '20" l,t:~ER Al>f:~eM;c,,~ •:•:;n;<o:S A~NESSEL Cf<O_O .. v o, ,c::ou Cl'MCT- CR- 2 CH- C•60·\ DOGCCC "CCC EO >I.'J·W~ M::.~S comrmHr· D -"\'STICE ~c ~Ai'.T:ES MO~I.C~ ~ur:uN •)l, )C '201S NA>:('Y CCiY o:,,'i/2·0'' FOR ~CC:DN Mil.CC C~E A TRC'E CCPY -~rTEST' OJ· R:<PCC'J ~N INJ:JREO. ST~-~8~-,·N~ SIJ:'P?.Ei'S DE~IW .TJ~T:CE COU"T ORDf'," ORLB CN >IANC~ ~0 PART:E"/CO:JNi:>:~ ~DER- CC/;1;20'' CRC>>;" PREPA:<AT~ml MC'I'CO'! ~C· 'cCL'N5R'_ <'0,_ I:[SCC'.'OF ,.:T:•_ ~::.OL-· Q'! ~E:~N~AN7' MCTIQ~ S C:OURT ORD'·"t<·c:_s 'CJd,201S TO EC'?'':-<ESS 8\'~H"ED CU ·JC.'E'OClO -.C:&TICR "'""6NIJANl''S ~O::'l')N T~ .':JONEU· IS L"'-BL 0'! 0' '15,20 15

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.