State of Maine v. Williams

Maine Superior

State of Maine v. Williams

DecidedJanuary 19, 2010

DocketKENcr-09-769

StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Maine v. Williams (State of Maine v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of Maine v. Williams, (Me. Super. Ct. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, SS. CRIMINAL ACTION Docket No. CR-09-7~ I J7ti M- '<.EN lj/1/().OfO STATE OF MAINE

v. ORDER

ROBERT W. WILLIAMS,

Defendant

This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant is

under indictment for gross sexual assault (Class A) and unlawful sexual contact

(Class B).

By way of background regarding the relationship of the investigating officer to

the defendant, on March 6, 2009, the investigating officer and another State trooper met

with the defendant at his home to arrange for a polygraph examination to be conducted

on April 6, 2009. The defendant, however, did not appear for the appointment. In

response to a report of suicidal ideation on the part of the defendant, the officers went

to the defendant's residence. The officers observed the defendant, under the influence,

lying on a sofa or bed, with a loaded rifle. The officers ordered the defendant out of the

residence at gun point and took him to the hospital.

On June 5, 2009, the investigating officer contacted the defendant and made

arrangements to interview him at his residence. Upon arriving at the defendant's

home, the officer invited the defendant to sit with him in the cruiser parked in the

driveway, saying "now we need to talk about what happened." In the cruiser, at the

time, behind an animal cage, was the officer's K-9, one German Shepard weighing 95 pounds. A video tape camera was affixed in the cruiser looking forward out the

windshield and it was activated in order to obtain an audio tape of this interview.

The court has heard the sworn testimony of the officer in question, and the

sworn testimony of the defendant. The court has also listened to the audio tape

interview in its entirety, which lasted approximately one hour and fourteen minutes.

The court heard both individuals enter the cruiser and heard the officer tell the

defendant that he was not under arrest. There was no legal counsel present. The officer

made it clear to the defendant that he knew that the situation weighed heavily on the

defendant's mind and that condition would continue until he told him the full story.

The officer made it clear that the interview would continue until he received the entire

truth.

It is clear from the nature of the discussion that the officer had reason to believe

that the victim complained of participation in oral sex. It is equally clear that the

defendant was generally describing improper conduct, which he regretted, but he

refused on every occasion to admit, then completely denied, any oral-genital contact. In

spite of the persistent assertion by the officer that he believed there was oral-genital

contact, the defendant was equally persistent that such did not take place. The

defendant freely admitted to other inappropriate contact with the child.

Toward the end of this interview, the officer engaged in a discussion without

mention of oral-genital contact, and received admissions from the defendant as to the

details of what took place.

The court has considered all the evidence including the most credible

information in the case in light of the standards of State v. Hassan, 2007 ME 77, 925 A.2d

625. The testimony and the video tape are clear that the individuals carried on the

2 discussion in the front seat of a State police cruiser just a few feet from the door to the

defendant's residence. There were no other persons in the area.

The officer initiated the contact without evidence of threat.

It would appear from the discussion that the officer had probable cause to arrest

the defendant. This was never specifically stated to the defendant because there never

was any denial by the defendant of inappropriate conduct including clear expressions

of remorse on the part the defendant with respect to that conduct. It was further clear

that the only issue was whether or not the defendant would admit to oral-genital

contact.

Nothing in the words of the officer or the responses by the defendant suggested

in any fashion that the defendant would have reason to perceive that he was not free to

leave the cruiser. The defendant's conduct did not manifest, in any way, an

apprehension as to his ability to leave or to otherwise participate in the discussion.1

There was no question that the defendant was the focus of the investigation or

that defendant was in any way denying that he was justifiably subject to the

investigati on.

The surroundings were obviously familiar as they were in very close proximity

to defendant's residence.

There was only a single law enforcement officer present unless one considers the

K-9 to be in that category. As will be discussed, the role of the K-9 is substantially less

than that asserted by defendant.

There was no physical restraint at any time imposed upon the defendant. The

officer admits touching the defendant on the shoulder in order to gain his confidence

1 The court uses the term "discussion" because that is what the court concludes was the nature of the

dialogue.

3 and to console him. Even though defendant described the same as a squeeze by way of

intimidation, there is no evidence to support that argument.

Finally, the court finds the length of the discussion and the character of the

discussion to be exactly that, a discussion between the officer and the defendant over

whether there was oral-genital contact as part of the incident being investigated.

There were occasions when the dog barked, and it has been suggested that the

presence of the large animal and its barking created a sense of intimidation of the officer

in the defendant. Not only was such intimidation not evident in any way, but on at

least two occasions when the dog barked, the defendant was speaking at the same time

and there was not the slightest halter or hint in his speech that would indicate he was

reacting to or disturbed by the barking. It has been suggested that the defendant was

denied the opportunity to leave the cruiser because he was uncomfortable, however, the

tape makes it clear that he expressed to the officer that he was cold and the officer

immediately responded that he would tum down the air conditioner. No further

mention of the issue appears. On one occasion the defendant made reference to

smoking, however, it was suggested that he was denied the right to leave the cruise in

order have a cigarette. The actual discussion was that he was smoking more since the

incident in question and the subsequent investigation.

Finally, the most telling indication of all the evidence of the nature of the

relationship between the officer and the defendant during the course of this

communication is the manner in which the interview ended. The officer and the

defendant agreed that there is no dispute on the underlying accusations except the

matter of oral-genital contact and they negotiated a deal in a courteous fashion that the

defendant would voluntarily undertake a polygraph examination on the single question

4 of whether or not his genitals touched the mouth of the victim. They had a cordial

parting with the understanding that the officer would schedule the examination

without delay and notify the defendant who would attend under the limitation as

agreed.

The entry will be:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI