Opinion ID: 2443527
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Voluntariness of Lavoie's Confession

Text: [¶ 18] Lavoie argues that his confession during the post-test interview was the product of coercive police conduct and, therefore, involuntary. 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, ¶ 10, 704 A.2d 387, 390-91 (quotation marks omitted); accord State v. Poblete, 2010 ME 37, ¶ 24, 993 A.2d 1104, 1109-10. In determining voluntariness, we consider the totality of the circumstances, including both external and internal factors, such as: 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 defendant; and the defendant's age, physical and mental health, emotional stability, and conduct. State v. Sawyer, 2001 ME 88, ¶ 9, 772 A.2d 1173, 1176. [T]he State bears the burden of proving voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt. Dion, 2007 ME 87, ¶ 33, 928 A.2d at 752. [¶ 19] In this case, the totality of the circumstances strongly indicates that Lavoie's confession was voluntary. See Sawyer, 2001 ME 88, ¶¶ 9-11, 772 A.2d at 1176-77. Lavoie volunteered to take the polygraph test, communicated with Detective Charleton several times about arranging it, and drove with his wife to the testing site. At the time of the test, Lavoie was thirty-seven years old, was in pretty good health, had slept good the previous night, and was not under the influence of any medications or substances. During the course of the examination, he was calm and appropriately responsive. Neither detective administering the test was in uniform or had a visible weapon. [¶ 20] At the beginning of the examination, Detective Mitchell explained Lavoie's Miranda rights to him, which Lavoie waived. Mitchell told Lavoie that he could stop at any time and it would not be held against him, that the door was unlocked, and that he could leave if he wished. Throughout the four-hour proceeding, both detectives were in the same room with Lavoie for twenty-six minutes and they took three breaks totaling about thirty-five minutes. During the final break, Lavoie left the building and spoke with his wife. Although Mitchell asked Lavoie to return to write the apology letter, Charleton reminded him that he was free to leave before he wrote the letter. [¶ 21] Lavoie argues that his confession was involuntary because Detective Charleton promised Lavoie he would get Lavoie alcohol counseling if Lavoie confessed. While [a] confession motivated by a promise of leniency by a person with apparent authority to execute the promise is involuntary, Coombs, 1998 ME 1, ¶ 11, 704 A.2d at 391, Lavoie does not allege that Charleton promised him leniency in the criminal case against him if he confessed. Moreover, the motion court found that Lavoie was not coerced with promises and that his confession was not motivated by the suggestion that he would get alcohol counseling. These findings are supported by the record. See Dion, 2007 ME 87, ¶¶ 33-34, 928 A.2d at 752; McCarthy, 2003 ME 40, ¶¶ 12-14, 819 A.2d at 340. [¶ 22] Lavoie also contends that Detective Charleton told him what to write in the apology letter, rendering it involuntary. When Lavoie asked to whom the letter should be addressed, Charleton suggested the victim. After Lavoie wrote the first paragraph, Charleton suggested making the letter more descriptive to show that Lavoie had owned up to specific actions, but he did not tell Lavoie what to write and said, it's up to you. Because these findings by the motion court are also supported by the record, we conclude that Charleton's statements regarding the letter were not coercive police conduct. See Dion, 2007 ME 87, ¶ 32, 928 A.2d at 752. [¶ 23] Additionally, Lavoie alleges that, during the pre-test interview, Detective Mitchell told him that the polygraph machine was foolproof while describing its ability to detect lies. A review of the record shows that Mitchell made the foolproof remark as part of an explanation of the difference between analog and computerized polygraph machines. In stating that the computer's ability to record physical responses is foolproof, Mitchell did not make any representations about the machine's ability to detect lies. A statement of this nature does not constitute unlawful police coercion. See Sawyer, 2001 ME 88, ¶ 9, 772 A.2d at 1176. [¶ 24] We have fully considered Lavoie's remaining arguments and do not discuss them further. Because the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that Lavoie's confession was voluntary, see id., ¶¶ 9-11, 772 A.2d at 1176-77, the court did not err in denying his motion to suppress it, see State v. Reese, 2010 ME 30, ¶ 4, 991 A.2d 806, 810. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. LEVY, J., with whom ALEXANDER, J., joins, concurring. [¶ 25] This Court has previously identified three values that are served by the voluntariness requirement: `(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. Sawyer, 2001 ME 88, ¶ 8, 772 A.2d 1173, 1176 (quoting State v. Mikulewicz, 462 A.2d 497, 500 (Me. 1983)). I write separately to emphasize that all three values are potentially compromised if a police detective persuades a crime suspect, prior to the administration of a polygraph examination, that the results of the exam are foolproof. [¶ 26] The Constitution's tolerance for the use of deception as an investigatory tactic by the police is not boundless. See, e.g., Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 534, 83 S.Ct. 917, 9 L.Ed.2d 922 (1963) (holding confession involuntary when police falsely threatened to remove children from defendant's custody if she did not cooperate); State v. Byram, 145 F.3d 405, 408 (1st Cir.1998) (stating that police trickery that rises to the level of coercion may result in determination that a confession is involuntary). A deception that actually compromises a suspect's ability to make a free choice of a rational mind, State v. Coombs, 1998 ME 1, ¶ 10, 704 A.2d 387, 390, is inherently coercive and fundamentally unfair. [¶ 27] Thus, where a suspect is persuaded, prior to a polygraph examination, that the results are foolproof, there is a heightened risk that the suspect will conform his or her post-examination statements to the allegedly foolproof results of the exam. In such a case, if the court determines that the deception was coercive and prevented the suspect from exercising free will, the resulting confession should be suppressed. See State v. Davis, 381 N.W.2d 86, 88 (Minn.Ct.App.1986) (determining that a confession was involuntary where, among other things, the examiner told the suspect that the polygraph test was foolproof); People v. Leonard, 59 A.D.2d 1, 397 N.Y.S.2d 386, 393-96 (1977) (holding that a confession was involuntary where, among other factors, during prolonged interrogation, the examiner told the suspect that the polygraph machine was infallible and knew the truth just like defendant and God.). [¶ 28] In this case, Lavoie urges us to conclude that the deceptionthe use of a polygraph examination to prompt his confessioncrossed the line, in part because Detective Mitchell persuaded him that the results of the polygraph examination would be foolproof. A review of the record establishes, however, that the suppression court was not compelled to find that this is what occurred. The transcript of the pre-examination interview reflects that Detective Mitchell told Lavoie that, in comparison to the printed results from a traditional analog polygraph machine, a computer's visual depiction of the lines correlating to the physiological responses of the person being examined is foolproof. Mitchell did not tell Lavoie that the polygraph examination's results are foolproof. [¶ 29] The representation by a polygraph examiner that any aspect of a polygraph examination is foolproof rightfully calls into question the voluntariness of any confession prompted by the examination. The practice should be avoided. Considering Detective Mitchell's representation in the context of the totality of the circumstances presented in this case, I am satisfied that suppression is not warranted and the judgment should be affirmed.