State of Maine v. Holden

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET
CUMBERLAND, ss DOCKET NO CR-22-4653

STATE OF MAINE
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S
Vv. MOTION TO SUPRESS

LUKE HOLDEN

This matter came before the court on October 12, 2023 for hearing
on Defendant’s motion to suppress. Defendant was present and was
represented by attorney Nathaniel Hitchcock, Esquire. The State was
represented by student attorney Remy Segovia along with supervising
attorney, Assistant District Attorney Joshua Avery Youngblood.

Defendant challenges whether or not his statements made to
Detective Cole Chandler on October 17, 2022 were obtained in violation
of Defendant’s state and federal constitutional rights. Specifically,
Defendant challenges whether any statements made were voluntary,
asserting that the statements were not made with free choice of a
rational mind. The court heard testimony from Detective Cole Chandler
from the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office as well as the Defendant,
Luke Holden. The court also admitted in evidence Exhibit 1, an audio
recording of the interview between law enforcement and Defendant.

After hearing the court left the evidence open to review Exhibit 1 in
its entirety. Having now considered ali the evidence, arguments
presented, and after listening to the full recorded interview, the court
makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law upon which
the Order set forth below is based.

Cole Chandler has been employed by the Cumberland County
Sheriff's Department for approximately ten years. Chandler has law
enforcement training and experience related to substance use including
alcohol use. At the time of this investigation, Chandler was a detective
for the Sheriffs Department.

Detective Chandler received a referral from the Department of
Health and Human Service (DHHS) involving, in part, an alleged
domestic violence assault involving Defendant, Luke Holden. The
detective began his investigation by speaking with the assigned DHHS
caseworker, Defendant’s wife, and Defendant’s six-year-old son.

On October 17, 2022, Detective Chandler went to Defendant’s
residence to speak with him about the allegations. The detective was not
in uniform and arrived at Defendant’s residence in an unmarked black
Chevy Tahoe. The interview took place outside in the driveway of the
Defendant’s home, approximately ten to fifteen feet from the main entry
area of the residence. Detective Chandler was alone when he spoke with
Defendant and he was dressed in plain clothes attire. Detective
Chandler recalled that he was armed with his service issue firearm, but
he was unsure whether the weapon was visible on his person or
concealed from sight during his interaction with Defendant. Although
not specifically addressed in the testimony, the court finds, based on a
review of the interview admitted as State’s Exhibit 1 and the testimony of
both Detective Chandler and Defendant that Defendant was not
handcuffed, that Defendant was not physically restrained, his
movements were not restricted, and he was not in custody during the
conversation.

After knocking on the door, the detective identified himself to
Defendant as “Detective Chandler from the Sheriff’s Office,” and asked if
they could “talk for a minute.” When Detective Chandler first arrived at
the residence, Defendant’s dogs were barking loudly, and no substantive
conversation took place after that introduction. After a few seconds of
loud distraction by the dogs, Defendant offered to “do something to
secure” the dogs inside the house, and he left the front door area with
the dogs. After approximately eighty-five seconds, Defendant returned
and the two began to speak.

Detective Chandler jumped into the conversation by asking
Defendant if he had spoken to someone from DHHS. Defendant
answered by outlining his contact with the DHHS caseworker. During
this part of the conversation, Defendant demonstrated an understanding
of the investigation. He also offered that he had notice of a certified letter
from DHHS, but that he had not yet been able to retrieve the letter from
the post office as it was closed when he went to get it. Detective
Chandler informed Defendant that he had spoken to the case worker,
Defendant’s wife, and son, and that he was there to get Defendant’s “side
of things.” At all times throughout the conversation, Detective
Chandler’s demeanor was calm, respectful, and professional. The
interview’s tone was nonconfrontational throughout.

Detective Chandler and Defendant interacted for approximately
nineteen minutes, during which time Detective Chandler did not smell
any odor of alcohol or note any slurred speech. Based on his
observations, Detective Chandler did not believe that Defendant was
intoxicated. To the contrary, Detective Chandler found Defendant’s
demeanor be conversational with his answers responsive and

forthcoming to the questions and topics discussed. The court finds that
Defendant’s answers were responsive to the questions asked of him, and
he volunteered detailed information in a calm, clear and communicative
manner. He recalled dates and names of people he spoke to about the
allegations. The conversation also suggests that Defendant aware that
this discussion was separate and distinct from any DHHS investigation.

Defendant testified about his long battle with alcohol addiction and
his daily alcohol consumption of four to five high alcohol beers and a few
shots of liquor. Defendant had also been charged with OUI with an
excessively high test two months prior to the interview. He suggested
that he usually began drinking after he got out of work as a sales
associate at Lowe’s. However, when asked if he had begun drinking the
day that the detective came to his house to speak with him, Defendant
said he could not recall. Defendant also asserted that he did not
understand that he was speaking to a law enforcement detective, and
that he only vaguely recalled the conversation. This is contrary to the
exchange between himself and Detective Chandler based on the court’s
review of Exhibit 1.

Defendant has challenged the admissibility of the statements made
to Detective Chandler both under state and federal constitutional
protections. Under the protections of the Maine Constitution, the “State
bears the burden to prove that a confession was voluntary beyond a
reasonable doubt ~- a more protective standard of proof than the federal
counterpart of a preponderance of the evidence.” State v. Annis, 2018
ME 15, 7 13, 178 A.3d 467 (citations omitted). Under Maine law, 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 of
the circumstances its admission would be fundamentally fair.” Id.

_ (citations and internal quotations omitted). See also State v, Seamon, ..
2017 ME 123, 7 18, 165 A.3d 342.

“The voluntariness requirement encompasses ‘three overlapping
but conceptually distinct values: (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.” Id. (quoting State v. Wiley, 2013 ME 30, { 16, 61 A.3d 750). In
order to determine the voluntariness of a confession, the court looks “at
the totality of the circumstances, including 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. Athayde, 2022 ME 41, 7 30, 277 A.3d 387

(quoting State v. Akers, 2021 ME 43, 4 47. 259 A.3d 127 (quotation
marks omitted).

The court finds that Defendant is of reasonable intelligence. The
officer, who was alone and dressed in plain clothes, identified who he
was, where he was from, and what he was there to speak with Defendant
about. Defendant offered clear and responsive answers to the questions
of the officer. Defendant was able to carry on a conversation with the
detective and gave appropriate explanations to questions and statements
throughout. The interrogation took place within ten to fifteen- feet from
Defendant’s front door, in his driveway, and lasted approximately
nineteen minutes. Although the detective did not inform Defendant of
his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S. 436 (1966), and its
progeny, Defendant was not in custody when Detective Chandler spoke
with him. The tone of the interview was relaxed, conversational and
professional at all times. The detective did not use any form of trickery,
threats, promises or inducements to persuade Defendant to talk to him.
At no point during the interview did Defendant ask or attempt to stop the
interview. The court finds that Defendant’s answers and statements to
Detective Chandler were the product of the free choice of a rational mind.
The court finds that the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt
that the statements made by Defendant to Detective Chandler were
voluntary and a product of his exercise of free will and with a rational
intellect.

Turning now to the question of the federal constitutional
protections, the court looks to whether the statements were involuntary
under the Fifth Amendment and Due Process Clause of the U.S.
Constitution. “A federal constitutional analysis of voluntariness focuses
on the presence of police misconduct and not on individual
characteristics or circumstances that can undermine voluntariness.”
Athayde, 2022 ME 41, 39, 277 A.3d 387 (citing Colorado v. Connelly,
479 U.S. 157, 163-67 {1986)). For the reasons stated above, the court
finds no misconduct by Detective Chandler violative of Defendant’s
federal constitutional rights.

Based on the evidence presented in the suppression hearing, as
well as the arguments of counsel, Defendant’s Motion to Suppress is
DENIED.

Dated: January 11, 2024

Deborah P. Cashman, Justice
Unified Criminal Docket