Opinion ID: 2273318
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reese's Statement in the Patrol Car

Text: [¶ 5] An officer drove by the motel and observed Reese exiting one of the motel rooms carrying a clear plastic trash bag which he threw into the motel dumpster. When the bag was later recovered it contained some items that were identified as the victim's possessions. Reese appeared to lock himself out of his room. An officer asked Reese his name, told him he was being detained, handcuffed him, and placed him in the back seat of a patrol car. When the officer who supervised the investigation arrived, he opened the back door to the patrol car and explained to Reese that he was being detained due to an investigation involving the victim. Reese responded: We broke up, and I haven't seen her in two weeks. No questions were asked of Reese at that point. [¶ 6] Reese argues that the court erred in holding that his statement in the patrol car was not the product of an interrogation. In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that the state may not use a defendant's statements stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. Id. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602. We have held that a court's conclusion that a law enforcement officer's comment did not constitute interrogation will be upheld unless the evidence shows that a contrary inference was the only reasonable conclusion that could have been drawn. State v. Smith, 612 A.2d 231, 233 (Me. 1992) (quotation marks omitted). Reese's statement in the patrol car was not the product of an interrogation. See id.