Opinion ID: 1983141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Admissibility of Police Station Statements

Text: The determinative questions in Birmingham's challenge to the suppression justice's refusal to suppress his police station statements are whether the suppression justice found that those statements were voluntary and whether that factual finding was clearly erroneous. See State v. Pinkham, 510 A.2d 520, 522 (Me.1986). Review of the transcript of the suppression hearing reveals that although the suppression justice did not explicitly find that Birmingham's police station confession was voluntary, that finding `appear[s] from the record with unmistakable clarity.' State v. Smith, 415 A.2d 553, 558 (Me.1980) (quoting Sims v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 538, 544, 87 S.Ct. 639, 643, 17 L.Ed.2d 593 (1967)). See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 397 n. 12, 98 S.Ct. 2408, 2416 n. 12, 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (finding of voluntariness appeared from record with unmistakable clarity where immediately prior to ruling of admissibility parties had argued issue of voluntariness of confession). The record fully supports the suppression justice's implicit finding that Birmingham's statements at the police station were voluntary. At the station the police did not subject Birmingham to threats, coercion, or trickery of any kind. Indeed, Birmingham testified at trial that the interrogating officers told him that he could go home whenever he wished. At the outset they carefully read Birmingham his Miranda rights. Birmingham demonstrated that he understood their significance and then stated that he wished to answer questions. The officers testified that Birmingham's answers were responsive. Although Birmingham was acquainted with one of the interrogating officers, that officer did not use his acquaintanceship with defendant to trick a confession out of defendant. State v. Pinkham, 510 A.2d at 523. Rather, that officer told Birmingham that he was working on the case and properly urged Birmingham to tell the truth. We can find no error, least of all clear error, in the suppression justice's implicit conclusion that Birmingham's police station statements result[ed] from the free choice of a rational mind, they were not a product of coercive police conduct, and under all of the circumstances [their] admission would be fundamentally fair. State v. Mikulewicz, 462 A.2d 497, 501 (Me.1983).
In arguing that the suppression justice erred in refusing to suppress his police station confession, Birmingham points to the failure of the police to give him renewed Miranda warnings after breaks in the questioning. Of course, a confession is not necessarily invalid because the Miranda warning is not repeated in full each time the interrogation process is resumed after an interruption. State v. Myers, 345 A.2d 500, 502 (Me.1975) (quoting Miller v. United States, 396 F.2d 492, 496 (8th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1031, 89 S.Ct. 643, 21 L.Ed.2d 574 (1969)). Whether the carry-over effect ( State v. Ruybal, 398 A.2d 407, 412 (Me.1979)) of the Miranda warning Birmingham received at the beginning of the questioning obviated any subsequent need for renewed Miranda warnings is governed by the five-part test set forth in State v. Myers, 345 A.2d at 502 (quoting Commonwealth v. Wideman, 460 Pa. 699, 707, 334 A.2d 594, 598 (1975)): (1) the time lapse between the last Miranda warnings and the accused's statements; (2) interruptions in the continuity of the interrogation; (3) whether there was a change of location between the place where the last Miranda warnings were given and the place where the accused's statement was made; (4) whether the same officer who gave the warnings also conducted the interrogation resulting in the accused's statement; and (5) whether the statement elicited during the complained of interrogation differed significantly from other statements which had been preceded by Miranda warnings. Analysis of those factors compels the conclusion that Birmingham voluntarily confessed at the police station with full knowledge of his legal rights [and having] knowingly and intentionally relinquish[ed] them. State v. Myers, 345 A.2d at 502 (quoting Miller v. United States, 396 F.2d at 496). (1) At most a total of two and one half hours elapsed between the Miranda warnings and Birmingham's confession. Cf. State v. Ruybal, 398 A.2d at 413 (renewed Miranda unnecessary where defendant made first inculpatory statement only four hours after general Miranda warnings and 90 minutes after Miranda warnings given before polygraph test). (2) Only three brief interruptions occurred in the questioning. (3) All questioning took place in the same room where Birmingham received the Miranda warnings. (4) The same officer who gave the Miranda warnings participated centrally in the interrogation that resulted in Birmingham's confession. (5) Although Birmingham's confession did of course differ significantly from his initial denials, that confession can only be viewed as the inevitable result of a properly conducted interrogation.