Ambiguous Invocation Of Right To Silence Enough Says Maine’s Highest Court

Capital Judicial Center, Augusta

Maine’s own constitution was given new meaning and vigor by the state’s highest court in a decision that protects anyone who doesn’t want to answer questions but is not clear about saying so.

The decision was part of a broader protection against self-incrimination, including an ambiguous request for an attorney.

The Supreme Judicial Court, known as the Law Court when deciding appeals, made its decision in the case State v. McLain - which had been pending a resolution for more than three years.

State courts can give additional protections under their own state constitutions. Decisions by the United States Supreme Court effectively set the floor of what minimum standards cannot be breached.

In McLain, the Law Court examined a case involving a traffic stop and later questioning of McClain who asked if there was a lawyer present, and was equivocal about answering questions and what, if any he would answer. This was after he was read the well-known Miranda warning.

The court decided his ambiguity was enough to make questioning stop and exclude from evidence - known as suppression - under Maine’s constitution, specifically Article 1 Section 6. Because this was not suppressed, the Law Court reversed and the case was remanded for a new proceedings in the trial court. McLain was convicted of drug offenses.

The opinion continues a legal tradition in Maine via case law about voluntariness, which must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. That is higher than the federal standard of more likely than not, known as preponderance of the evidence.

However, as it has repeated many times, an argument about the state’s search and seizure provision, Article 1 Section 5, was not preserved. Currently, the state follows the U.S. Supreme Court and the Fourth Amendment.