/ 4/1/21 STATE OF MAINE
AROOSTOOK, ss
STATE OF MAINE (\{/\ {2--Q \ f; (J\[ISi" ll l ) vs . ) ORDER ON MOTION ) TO SUPPRESS ) ) RAY A. GALPIN 1
~ ii,io~rµ(i~s By an Indictment dated April 4, 2019, Defendant Ray Galpin (hereafter "Galpin") is
charged with Sexual Abuse of a Minor, Class C (17-A M .R.SA. §254(1)(A-2)) and Unlawful
Sexual Contact, Class D (17-A M.R.SA. § 255-A(l)(F-2)). Pending before the court is Galpin's
Motion to Suppress Statements, filed November 30, 2020. Galpin contends that he was
subjected to a custodial interrogation by a law enforcement officer without the benefit of
Miranda warnings, and that any statements made were not made voluntarily. Hearing on the
motion was held March 17, 2021. At hearing testimony was received from Detective Christopher
Foxworthy of Maine State Police. Also admitted into evidence was Exhibit 1, which is a
recording of the interview of Galpin conducted on September 12, 2018.
Findings of Fact
The court makes the following findings of facts upon consideration of the testimony
presented at hearing and from watching the video of the interview of Galpin conducted on
1 / . (
September 12, 2018 (any references to the video will be to the approximate video timer (Vid. _',
_'')):
In September of 2018 Maine State Police were investigating allegations that Galpin had
had unlawful sexual encounters with two minor females. Prior to interviewing Galpin, the
investigation included interviews of the two minor females, Courtney and Tristan, as well as
attending an interview of one of the minors at the Child Advocay Center. On September 11, 2018
Detective Foxworthy went to Galpin' s residence in Presque Isle to initiate an interview. No one
was present at the residence so Detective Foxworthy left his business card at the door, with his
cell phone number written on the back. Galpin called detective Foxworthy later that day.
Detective Foxworthy asked Galpin if he would meet him for an interview on a matter he was
investigating. Detective Foxworthy did not tell him what the investigation involved. Galpin
agreed to meet Detective Foxworthy the next day, September 12, 2018 at 9 am at the Presque
Isle Police Department.
Galpin, accompanied by is girlfriend, arrived by private transportation at the Presque Isle
Police Department at 9 am on September 12, 2018. After entering the lobby, he was met by
Detective Lawrence Anderson of Maine State Police. Detective Anderson led Galpin to the
interview room which was adjacent to the lobby. The distance from the main entrance of the
lobby to the interview room is approximeately 30 feet. Detective Foxworthy was already in the
interview room when Galpin entered.
The interview room was furnished with a table and chairs, and a recording camera, and is
accessed by two doors. One door is to the lobby, and the second door is to a hallway which leads
to the inner offices of the police department. There are no windows.
2 ( (
When Galpin entered the interview room, he was greeted by Detective Foxworthy, who
was standing, and the two shook hands. Detective Anderson entered the interview room
immediately after Galpin. As Detective Anderson shut the door, he told, and showed, Galpin the
door could be opened and was unlocked. (Vid. O', 21"). Detective Anderson and Galpin then also
shook hands. Both detectives were dressed in plain clothes, and each was wearing a sidearm that
was fully concealed under their clothing.
After exchanging greetings, Galpin sat at the head of the table, with the lobby door
immediately to his right, and the hallway door behind him. The detectives sat at opposite sides of
the table. Neither detective blocked Gal pin's access to the doors. All of them remained seated at
the table for the duration of the interview. Although the officers questioned Galpin in an
interrogative manner, the detectives spoke in a conversational, non-threatening tone throughout
the duration of the interview. There was never any yelling, screaming, or raised voices. And no
aggressive gestures or threatening body movements were ever made. Through the interview,
Galpin drank from a Tim Horton's coffee cup that he had brought with him. And for the duration
of the interview Galpin maintained his composure, appeared calm, and remained attentive and
responsive to the questions. Galpin, who was 37 years old at the time, appears to have been in
good health, rested, and never appears to be in distress, emotional or crying. When the interview
was concluded, the detectives and Galpin all stood up, shook hands, and Galpin then exited the
interview room with his coffee. The entire interview lasted about 1 hour, 18 minutes. Galpin was
arrested 8 months after the interview.
Detective Foxworthy was the lead investigator, but was joined by Detective Anderson as
it is policy to have two detectives present for interviews of this nature. Detective Foxworthy
began the interview by telling Galpin he was there voluntarily, he was not under arrest, he could
3 (
leave at anytime, the door was not locked, and that he would not hold him up if he left. And
Detective Foxworthy told Galpin " ..nothing we talk about today-short of you confessing to a
murder, which I'm not investigating-will result in you being arrested today. OK?" (Vid. O', 45").
Galpin indicated he understood. (Vid. O' ,45"). Detective Foxworthy testified Miranda warnings
were not read because he did not believe the interview was custodial. By the time of the
interview, Galpin was the primary focus of the investigation. Although Detective Foxworthy
acknowledged they may have had probable cause based on the victim's statements, he testified
they were still investigating, intending to complete their report to present to the District Attorney
for review. When asked on cross-examination why he told Galpin he would not be arrested that
day, Detective Foxworthy responded that he assumed Galpin would have found it nerve racking
to be invited in for an interview, and he he wanted to put him more at ease and willing to talk.
Detective Foxworthy next inquired how Galpin slept the night before, and if he had
consumed any drugs or alcohol. Galpin, who was 37 at the time, indicated he only had two hours
of sleep, but explained that was normal and he felt fine that day, and that he had not drank the
night before or taken any drugs.(Vid. 1', 10" -1 ', 30"). Detective Foxworthy then asked Galpin
several background questions, including date of birth, address, contact information, work, and
relationship status.
After asking background questions, Detective Foxworthy asked Galpin if he knew why
he wanted to speak with him. (Vid. 4', 30"). Galpin responded that he wasn't really sure, but
wondered if it was about a child custody matter. The detective told him that was not the purpose,
then began to ask Galpin if he knew "Courtney". (Vid. 5', 40"). Once they confirmed Courtney's
last name, Galpin explained she was a cousin. After briefly discussing the nature of the family
relationship, Detective Foxworthy told Galpin that Courtney had alleged that she and Galpin had
4 ( (
had sex. Galpin denied the allegation. (Vid. 6', OO"to 7', 00"). Over the next several minutes,
both Detective Foxworthy and Anderson continued to ask questions related to the allegations
made by the two victims, Courtney and Tristan. The tactics utilized by the detectives included:
presenting Galpin with different possible scenarios how a sexual act may have occurred; assuring
Galpin they did not think he was a bad guy while also indicating they just wanted to get to the
truth; asserting the allegations must be true as there were two different victims who
independently made the same allegations, and that his version did not add up; their wanting to be
able to write in their report that this was an isolated event, unlikely to happen again; and
presenting the scenario that this was a situation where maybe counseling was needed. Some
examples of the interrogation follow:
- on several occasions the detectives exhorted Galpin to tell the truth, using phrases that
they " ..just want the truth ..", the facts," ..get the cards out on the table .."," ..iron things out.."
(Vid. 12'20");
-on several occasions the detectives told Galpin they thought he was a good guy, and not
a bad guy, and they weren't judging him, but they needed to know what happened; (Vid. 10'30",
20', 30");
- Detective Anderson stated they like to " ..get all the facts on the table ..iron them
out....and if counseling is needed, that is something that could be done .." (Vid. 18').
- the detectives told Galpin they believed something happened, but that they did not think
Galpin was a bad guy, but they needed to make sure, which is why they needed him to tell the
truth. (Vid. 24')
5 (
- Detective Anderson presented Galpin with a scenario that Galpin had feelings for
Courtney, the sex was consensual, they kissed, ".Juices got flowing ..", and he couldn't stop.
(Vid. 19', and 22')
- The detectives stated they didn't want to leave thinking Galpin was a predator, and
didn't think he was, and that they thought it was a one time event, but needed to know for sure.
(Vid. 19', 23'); and that they weren't judging him nor think he was a bad guy. (Vid. 20'30").
- after Galpin told the detectives these allegations had been falsely raised before and went
away, Detective Anderson told Galpin the investigation would not be going away this time. (Vid.
20'40")
- Several times the detectives told Galpin his story did not add up, that they believed the
victims, and they questioned "why would they lie?", and pointed out there were two independent
victims making the same type of allegation; Detective Foxworthy also said " one statement
maybe just smoke ... but two ... might be a fire .." (Vid. 18'-21' );
-the detectives told Galpin they wanted to be able to write a report that this was a one
time event, not likely to happen again; and if he told the truth, they would not have to come back
again. (Vid. 23'-24').
In closing arguments made at hearing, Galpin asserts that by the 23 minute mark of the
interview, the interview was custodial and no longer voluntary.
Discus son
1. Was the interview of Galpin custodial?
Galpin contends the interview by Detective Foxworthy and Detective Anderson at the
Presque Isle Police Station was custodial, or became custodial during its course. The State does
6 not dispute that Galpin was subjected to an interrogation, and that Miranda warnings were not
given.
The law is clear that a Miranda warning is necessary only if a defendant is: (1) in
custody; and (2) subject to interrogation. Statements made by a person subjected to custodial
interrogation who is not first given Miranda warnings are inadmissible against that person at
trial. State v. Nadeau, 2010 ME 71, !53,1 A.3d 445,464 (internal citations and punctuation
omitted) A person, who is not subject for formal arrest, may be in custody if a reasonable person
standing in the shoes of the defendant would have felt that he was not at liberty to terminate the
interrogation and leave or if there was a formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement. Id.
The State must prove that police conduct was constitutionally valid by a preponderance of the
evidence. State v. Kittredge, 2014 ME 90, ! 17, 97 A.3d 106. Courts consider the totality of a
number of factors in making the objective determination if a person is in custody. Those factors
include:
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;
7 ( (
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 place upon the suspect; and
10. the duration and character of the interrogation. Nadeau at j54.
The interview of September 12, 2018 took place at the Presque Isle Police Station, at the
request of Detective Foxworthy. But, the request and arrangements for the interview were done
by phone, the prior evening. Detective Foxworthy told Galpin he would like to interview him
regarding a matter he was investigating. Galpin agreed to meet, and he had the overnight to
reflect on whether to attend. On the morning of September 12, 2018, Galpin went to the police
station by private transportation, and was accompanied by his girlfriend. Galpin's appearance at
the police station was clearly of his own volition.
Once in the interview room, Galpin was told by Detective Foxworthy that he was there
voluntarily, was not under arrest, could leave at any time time, and that nothing he told them
" ..today .." would result in his being arrested " ..today ..". And the detectives both told, and
showed, Galpin that the door could be open and was unlocked. Galpin indicated he understood.
And there were no non-verbal communications by either detective which would cause Galpin to
reasonably believe that he could not leave. He was seated closest to the door, and neither
detective blocked his access or ability to leave. The detectives always remained seated, and did
8 (
not act, move, or gesture in an aggressive or threatening manner. Galpin was never denied or
prevented from leaving, and the detectives said nothing that would cause him or a reasonable
person in his position to believe he could not leave. There were never any discussions about
when the interview would be done, or that Galpin could not leave. Galpin never said anything
which could be interpreted as him wanting to leave or terminate the interview, nor even wanting
a break. And there was nothing the detectives said or did that would cause a person in Galpin's
position to perceive he could not leave. In summary, there is nothing Galpin said or did, or
responses made by the detectives to things Galpin said or did, that would cause a reasonable
person in Galpin's position to perceive he could not leave.
There is no doubt Galpin was the focus of the investigation, and that he, as would any
reasonable person in his shoes, would percieve he was the focus. The court also finds that by the
time of the interview, the State had probable cause to charge and arrest Galpin him for the crimes
had they desired.
The interview was conducted in an interview room at Presque Isle Police Station, a
setting Galpin was not familiar with. But the layout and furnishings of the interview room were
rather benign, and the room appeared and was configured as any office or conference room
would. There were no physical restraints of any kind, and as previoulsy mentioned, the positions
where the detectives sat did not block or prevent Galpin from leaving or gaining access to the
door. And there were no movements, gestures, or other non-verbal communication by the
detectives that would prevent Galpin from leaving, or cause him to believe he could not leave.
In his closing made at the hearing, Galpin argued that the interview became custodial
when the detectives told him if he told them the truth, they wouldn't have to come back. The
9 ( (
court disagrees. Those comments were merely exhortations to tell the truth, which will be
discussed, infra.
The interview was conducted by two detectives. But having two officers present seems
consistent with police practice. More importantly, having two officers present and questioninig
him rather than just one did not meaningfully add to the degree or level of police power or
intimidation. And again, although there were two officers present, the manner they positioned
themselves in the room, and the manner they conducted the interview, was never aggressive or
threatening; nothing the detectives did or said would have caused a person in Galpin's position to
perceive he could not terminate the interview and leave, even with two officers present.
Finally, the interview lasted approximately 1 hour, 18 minutes. An interview of that
duration is not long, and there was nothing about its duration or how it was conducted that would
suggest Galpin was being detained or kept there involuntarily.
That Galpin was the focus of the investigation, probable cause to arrest existed, and that
the interview was held at the police station weigh towards a custodial setting. But the detectives
words and conduct during the interview, and how Galpin responded thereto, weigh more heavily
to a non-custodial setting. Galpin was asked to come in for an interview-having overnight to
reflect, he voluntarily appeared. The detectives clearly and unequivocally told him was not under
arrest, was free to leave, and would not be arrested, and he was told and shown that the door was
open- Galpin responded that he understood. And nothing changed over the course of the
interview. Neither detective did or said anything that indicated, or would cause Galpin or a
reasonable person in his position, to perceive he could not leave, including their words, conduct,
gestures or how positioned within the room. The court finds that based on these facts, a
reasonable person in Galpin's position would have believed he could terminate the interrogation
10 ( (
and leave at anytime. Accordingly, the court finds that the State has proven by a preponderance
of the evidence that Galpin was not in custody at any time during the interview.
2. Were Galpin's statements made voluntarily?
Only a voluntary confession is admissible into evidence, and the State must prove
voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Kittredge, 2014 ME 90 j24;State v. McCarthy,
2003 ME 40,112,819 A.2d 335,340. The voluntariness requirement 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.
State v. Hunt,_2016 ME 172, j 20, citing State v. Mikulewicz, 462 A.2d 497,500 (Me.
1983).
To determine whether a confession is voluntary, the court must consider the totality of
the circumstances. State v. Lockhart, 2003 ME 108, j 30,830 A.2d 433,444. A confession is
voluntary if it results from the free choice of a rational mind, if it is not a product of coercive
police conduct, and if under all the circumstances its admission would be fundamentally fair.
State v. Coombs,_1998 ME 1,110. See also State v. Mikulewicz_,. 462 A.2d 497, 501(Me. 1983).
In making its decision of voluntariness, the court may consider the following factors: 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
11 (
defendant; the defendant's age, physical, mental health, emotional stability, and conduct. Id
citing State v. Sawyer, 2001 ME 88 '19,772 A.2d at 1176. State v. Hunt,_2016 ME 172, '122.
Before discussing the various factors and the totality of the circumstances of the
interview, the court will also review the current law regarding improper promises or
inducements. False promises of leniency that induce a confession are improper and will weigh
significantly into the consideration of the totality of circumstances. Hunt, '129. A promise is false
when it involves a benefit that could not be delivered -or is not in fact delivered- by the
governmental agent making the promise, or when the agent has no authority to give the
defendant what was offered. Id. A promise involves leniency when it suggests that the process of
prosecution or sentencing will somehow be better for the defendant if the defendant confesses.
Id. The determination of historical facts underlying a question of voluntariness must be made by
the trial court, but the "psychological fact" of the voluntariness of a confession is a determination
of law. Hunt, '134. Cognitive ability of a defendant is part of the voluntariness determination. Id.,
'1 37. A defendant's characteristics are balanced against the pressure exerted by law enforcement.
Id., '138. The balancing of the personal characteristics against the police pressures reflects a
recognition that the amount of police pressure that is constitutional is not the same for each
defendant. When the allegedly coercive police conduct includes subtle forms of psychological
persuasion, the mental condition of the defendant becomes more significant in the
"voluntariness" calcalus. Id. citing State v. Hoppe, 661 N.W.2d 407,414 (Wis. 2003). Relevant
personal characteristics include the defendant's age, education and intelligence, physical and
emotional condition, and prior experience with law enforcement. Id.
12 (
To put this into context our Law Court has previosly ruled that the following
representations by law enforcement were not improper promises of leniency: suggestion the State
would get the defendant help. State v. Gould,_2012 ME 60, ! 11-13; officer suggesting the
defendant would get alcohol counseling if he confessed. State v. Lavoie, 2010 ME 76, ! 21;
officer telling the defendant "the more cooperative you are, the better things are for you", State v.
Nadeau, 2010 ME 71, ! 57; officer telling defendant "it will look better for you to confess", State
v. Dion, 2007 ME 87, ! 34; officer telling defendant "it would be better to tell us the truth", "it
will make you feel better", "people would think more of him if he got it off his chest", State v.
Theriault, 425 A .2d 986,990 (Me. 1981).
On the other hand, problematic false promises of leniency include: assuring defendant he
would be charged with only one of the three burglaries if he would clear up all of the matters,
State v. Tardiff, 374 A.2d 598 (Me. 1977); the officer promising that what he told him would
remain confidential, State v. McConkie,_2000 ME 158.
The Law Court has noted that neither "generalized and vague" suggestions that telling the
truth will be helpful to a defendant in the long run, Kittredge, 2014 ME 90, J 28, nor "mere
admonitions or exhortations to tell the truth," State v. Tardift. 374 A.2d 598, 601 (Me. 1977) will
factor significantly into the totality of the circumstances analysis. Hunt, at j 23.
The court will now apply the factors listed above to the case at hand. Regarding Galpin
himself, at the time of the interview he was 37 years old and appeared to be in good health, of
average intelligence, sound mind, and reasonably articulate. Through the duration of the
interview he remained composed and fully attentive; he understood the nature and purpose of the
interview; and he comprehended the questoins being asked and was appropriately responsive. At
13 (
no time during the interview does he appear stressed, under duress, or as succumbing to pressure.
Based on his appearance and presentation, his responses to the detectives questions appears to be
the result of free choice of a rational mind.
The interview was conducted by two detectives. But as previously discussed, the manner
in which the detectives conducted their interview, including their tone, how positioned in the
interview room, and there non-verbal communication did not present as intimidating or coercive.
The detectives never threatened Galpin. They never even touched him other than shaking hands
at the beginning and end of the interview. Although the detectives used an interrogative tone,
they never yelled or shouted at him. Although Detective Anderson did assure Galpin the
investigation was not going away, that statement was not a threat, but rather making the point
they intended to complete the investigation. And there is no evidence of police trickery.
The detectives did repeatedly tell Galpin they just wanted the truth," ..get the cards on the
table ..", and encouraged Galpin to tell them truthfully what had occurred. Although they were
generally persistent in their requests for Galpin to be truthful, they were not overly persistent nor
intimidating. Rather their requests of Galpin were merely exhortations to tell the truth, and were
not done in a deceptive or threatening manner. See Kittredge, 2014 ME 90, j 28, State v. Tardiff,
374 A.2d at 601. Similarly, the detectives telling Galpin they did not think he was a bad person,
and they wanted to be able to write in their report that this was a one time event unlikely to
happen again, were alternative means of encouraging Galpin to be truthful, and were not a
promise of leniency. See State v. Dion, 2007 ME 87, !34; State v. Nadeau, 2010 ME 71, !57.
Galpin points to Detective Anderson's reference to counseling as a false promise. But the
detective's reference to counseling was made while encouraging Galpin to be truthful, and
pointed out that counseling was something that is oftened arranged in circumstances such as
14 (
those being investigated. The detective did not in any way promise or assure Galpin that if he
confessed his only consequence would be counseling. See State v. Lavoie, 2010 l\1E 76, ! 21. No
false promise was made. Furthermmore, Galpin did not respond in any manner to the comment
of counseling. There is no evidence he made any admissions because of a hope for counseling.
And the length of the interview, 1 hour, 18 minutes was not excessive. Objectively, 80
minutes is not especially lengthy. In addition, the interview was conducted at 9 am, in the
morning when Galpin was rested and starting his day. He never appeared tired or wore down,
and his appearance did not change as the interview progressed. Per the video, Galpin went
through the entire interview with generally the same demeanor and effect, always alert,
responsive, and mentally and emotionally intact.
The interview was conducted at the police station. But as previoulsy described, the layout
and setting of the interview room was generic, appearing as a typical office or conference room.
There is nothing about the interview room, other than it being situated in the police station, that
was intimidating or impacted Galpin's free choice.
Miranda warning were not given. But as previoulsy found, the interview was not
custodial.
Considering the totality of the circumstances, the State has proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that the statements made by Galpin were the result of free choice of a rational mind, and
were not a product of coercive police conduct, and that the admission of his statements at trial
would be fundamentally fair. The court finds that the statements made by Galpin were made
voluntarily.
15 (
In conclusion, the court finds that the interview conducted of Galpin on September 12,
2018 was non-custodial, and that the statements and admissions made by him were made
-Anr1\_1_ ~ ,2021
IIarold Stewart,11
Justice, Superior Court