Opinion ID: 2305711
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Conversations with McSweyn

Text: [¶ 11] O'Rourke contends that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of his conversations with agent McSweyn because the information obtained from these conversations is unreliable or obtained in a manner that is not just suspect, but [so] overwhelmingly underhanded and deceitful that its admission results in a deprivation of equity and fairness. O'Rourke contends that, because he was in custody, confined with Dorothy in jail under the constant threat of physical danger, and the State exercised virtually complete control over his environment, the use of an informant to deliberately elicit or coerce statements from O'Rourke violates his due process rights. [¶ 12] We will uphold a denial of a motion to suppress if any reasonable view of the evidence supports the trial court's decision. State v. Thibodeau, 2000 ME 52, ¶ 5, 747 A.2d 596, 598. We review any questions of law that arise in the analysis de novo. Id. [¶ 13] A confession is involuntary and inadmissible if the interrogation methods employed were so offensive to a civilized system of justice that they violate the Due Process Clause. Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 109-10, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985). The United States Supreme Court held that the use of an informant who visited a suspect in his hotel room did not violate the Due Process Clause. Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S. 293, 310-12, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966). That the Supreme Court held the use of secret informers is not per se unconstitutional, id. at 311, 87 S.Ct. 408, does not mean, however, that the use of Dorothy in this case is necessarily constitutional. Rather, we must examine the facts to see if they constitute a due process violation. [¶ 14] O'Rourke did not face the type of coercion that renders a confession involuntary. Dorothy was not placed in O'Rourke's cell block for the purpose of informing on him; rather, O'Rourke was moved into the cell block that Dorothy occupied before the authorities were aware of O'Rourke's scheme and before O'Rourke even spoke with Dorothy. Furthermore, McSweyn instructed Dorothy not to encourage O'Rourke's activities. We hold that, on the facts of this case, there is no due process violation. The court did not err in denying O'Rourke's motion to suppress.