State of Maine v. Wing

STATE OF MAINE UNIFIED CRIMINAL DOCKET
CUMBERLAND, ss DOCKET NO CR-2021-1330

STATE OF MAINE
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S
V. MOTION TO SUPRESS

PETER GLEN WING

This matter came before the court on August 29, 2022 for hearing
on Defendant's motion to suppress. Defendant was present and was
represented by Attorney Seth Berner, Esquire. The State was
represented by Assistant District Attorney Michael Madigan.

Defendant challenges whether or not the Defendant's statements
were voluntary, asserting that the Defendant's statements were not made
with free choice of a rational mind. Defendant specifically challenges
whether or not the statement was obtained in violation of Defendant's
federal and state rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S. 436 (1966)
and its progeny and whether any statements were voluntarily made. The
statements in question were made by Defendant on September 11, 2021.
The court heard testimony from Investigator Edward H. Hastings of the
Maine State Fire Marshall's office as well as the Defendant, Peter Wing ..
The court also received in evidence Exhibit 1, an audio recording of the
interview between law enforcement and Defendant on September 11,
2021.

After hearing, the court reviewed Exhibit 1 in its entirety. Having
now considered all of the evidence, arguments presented, and observing
the content of the recorded interview, the court makes the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law upon which the Order set forth
below is based.

BACKGROUND

Edward Hastings has been employed by the State of Maine since
June 2021 as an investigator for the State Fire Marshall's office. He
previously worked for the State Fire Marshall's office from 2008 to 2012.
He has previously worked as a law enforcement officer, employed by the
Town of Farmington beginning in 2004 to 2008 and again in 2012 when
he returned to the Farmington Police Department as a patrol sergeant.
In addition to his law enforcement and investigative jobs, Investigator
Hastings has been a fire fighter for 26 years, including serving as Fire
Chief in the Town of Livermore Falls prior to his present employment.
Investigator Hastings has received extensive training relating to origins

1
and causes of fires, and in July of 2022 he became a certified fire
investigator through the International Association of Arson Investigator
(IAAI). He is also a graduate of the Maine Criminal Justice Academy and
has received training in OUI investigation and is a certified drug
recognition expert and instructor.

On September 11, 2021, Investigator Hasting was sent to the area
of 41 State Street in August to investigate a suspicious fire. He arrived
between 8:00 and 8:30 pm. Members of the Augusta Police Department
and the Augusta Fire Department were still at the scene when he arrived.
Investigator Hasting gathered background information from the officers
and firefighters on scene about their observations prior to his arrival.

The location of 41 State Street is an apartment building with a
garage directly next to the building. The fire was in the garage. Many of
the tenants from 41 State Street were outside of the building when
Investigator Hastings arrived. One tenant, later identified as the
Defendant, Peter Wing, initially remained in the apartment building.
Officers informed Investigator Hastings that prior to his arrival,
Defendant had been loud and obnoxious, yelling from a second-floor
balcony down to the firefighters dealing with the garage fire, and he had
been instructed to quiet down. Once Investigator Hastings was on scene,
he could still hear Defendant yelling from inside the apartment building.
As the investigators were conducting their work with respect to the fire,
Investigator Hastings (and other members of law enforcement) observed
Defendant hold a gun up in the window, resting it on the windowsill.
Defendant did not point the gun at anyone, but rather "stuck it up in the
window" where the officers could see the gun's silhouette. Investigators
could also see Defendant walking around in his apartment on the second
floor.

After the investigators had been on scene for a couple of hours,
Defendant exited the building through an enclosed stairwell from the
second floor. As he exited the building, Defendant was approached by
Officer Guptil of the Augusta Police Department. As the officer
approached him, Defendant attempted to return to the building, but the
officer detained Defendant at this point. Although it was not expected or
planned to speak with Defendant at this point, Investigator Hastings
made the determination to interview Defendant once he exited the
building.

The interview took place at the entrance to the enclosed stairway to
Defendant's apartment. Officer Guptill was also present he did not
participate in the interview conducted by Investigator Hastings. The
officer was dressed in his police uniform and Investigator Hastings was

2
dressed in "plain clothes attire." 1 Investigator Hastings had his firearm
on as well. It was very dark in the area of the interview. Defendant was
not handcuffed or physically restrained during the time that Investigator
Hastings was interviewing Defendant.

Initially upon making contact with Defendant, Investigator
Hastings can be heard instructing Defendant to "sit right on those steps."
After a few short questions asking Defendant if he had ever been in
trouble before, and when, Investigator Hastings informs Defendant that
he works with the Fire Marshall's office and that even though he is a fire
marshal, he is a "cop." Defendant then asks, "can I have your badge
number and can I see a badge?" The officer answers yes and shows
Defendant his badge. The investigator then asks if that is official enough
to which Defendant responds, "yes sir."

Investigator Hastings read Defendant the Miranda warning from
the inside cover of his fire marshal issued notebook. Defendant
answered "yes sir" or "yup" to each of the four questions. When asked
the second question, if he understood that that anything that he said
could be used against him in a court of law, Defendant responded "I
know my Miranda rights. Yes sir, I've been arrested that many times I
know of." When asked if he wished to answer questions, he stated yup,
and then asked if he could go home. Defendant was very concerned
about his apartment being unlocked stating, "well I need to lock up my
place, if you're going to put me in jail." At no point did Defendant inform
the investigator that he did not wish to answer any questions.

Investigator Hastings could tell that Defendant had been drinking.
He could smell alcohol coming from Defendant and his speech was
slurred. Additionally, prior to interacting with Defendant, Investigator
Hastings had been informed by the fire chief that Defendant was an
alcoholic, and that he was intoxicated. Defendant's presentation with
Investigator Hastings was consistent with that information that night.
During the course of the interview, Defendant was able to sit without
falling or having any physical difficulties. Defendant was not physically
ill at any point.

Defendant asserted at the motion to suppress that he was unaware
that he was speaking to a law enforcement officer. This is contrary to the
exchange between himself and Investigator Hastings. Defendant
specifically asked if he could see the investigators badge, which the
investigator obliged. When asked if the badge was "official enough"
Defendant stated "yes sir." Defendant also asserted that he was so

1 The investigator could not recall if he was wearing a polo type shirt or a
collared dress shirt without a tie.

3
intoxicated that he was unable to complete the booking process at the
Kennebec County Jail. Although there was insufficient evidence as to
what happened during the entire booking process, the initiation of the
booking process is heard at the end of Exhibit 1, where the officers are
speaking to Defendant, and he is responding to their questions.

Defendant's answer to the investigator's question were responsive
and consistent with the topic of the interview. Defendant's demeanor
during the interview was sometimes calm and sometimes agitated,
especially when speaking about his landlord. Defendant's statements
were also consistent with the information that the investigator had
learned from the scene that night. The interview lasted approximately 23
minutes. 2

"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, 113, citations omitted. "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.. See also State v.
Seamon, 2017 ME 123, 118.

"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." State v. Seamon, 2017 ME 123, 118. In order to determine the
voluntariness of a confession, a court looks at the totality of
circumstances, State v. Sawyer, 2001 ME 88, 17, 772 A.2d 1173, as well
as a number internal and external factors: the specific details of the
interrogation, the duration and location of the interrogation, whether or
not it was custodial, whether Miranda was given, the number of officers
involved, the persistence of the officers, whether or not any police
trickery, threats, promises or inducements were made, as well as the
particular defendant's age, physical and mental health, emotional
stability and conduct. Seamon, 2017 ME 123,118, see also State v.
Dodge 2011 ME 47, 1i! 11-12, 17 A.3d 128, 132.

2 The entire recording is 43 minutes and 15 seconds long, with the first 23
minutes consisting of the interview. At that point, Investigator Hastings places
Defendant under arrest and then transports him to the county jail. The
recording ends with the booking officers taking over at the facility. (See Motion
Exhibit 1.)

4
The court finds that Defendant is of reasonable intelligence.
Defendant was responsive to the questions asked, he was able to carry
on a conversation with the investigator, and he gave appropriate
explanations to questions and statements throughout. The court finds
that Defendant was in custody when Investigator Hastings interviewed
him and as such, the investigator informed Defendant of his rights
pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 348 U.S. 436 (1966) and its progeny.
Investigator Hastings read Defendant his Miranda rights out loud from
the printed Miranda warning on his police issue notebook. A review of
the colloquy between Investigator Hastings and Defendant demonstrates
that the warnings were thoroughly administered, and the Defendant is
clearly heard stating that he understood his rights and then answered
that he wished to answer questions. The tone of the interview was
conversational at all times, albeit at points the investigator was direct in
his statements regarding Defendant's involvement in setting the fire.
The investigator did not use any form of trickery, threats, promises or
inducements in order to persuade Defendant to talk to him. At no point
during the interview, did Defendant ask or attempt to stop the interview.

"A person under the influence of alcohol is not necessarily
incapable of waiving his constitutional rights or giving a voluntary
statement, if despite the degree of intoxication he is aware and capable of
comprehending and communicating with coherence and rationality."
State v. Finson, 447 A.2d 788, 792 (Me. 1982). (quotations and citations
omitted.). See also State v Clark, 475 A.2d 418, 421-422 (Me. 1984).

The court finds that the State has proven beyond a reasonable
doubt that the statements made by Defendant to Investigator Hastings
were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and a product of his exercise
of free will and with a rational intellect. Based on the evidence presented
in the suppression hearing, as well as the arguments of counsel,
Defendant's Motion to Suppress as to the September 11, 2021 interview
is DENIED.

Dated: November 22, 2022 ~ --~
Deborah P. Cashman, Justice
Unified Criminal Docket

5
Entered on the docket ; V~ '?/ ) ,. ,~,)