State of Maine v. Jenkins

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
CUMBERLAND, SS. Docket No. 21­
03010

STATE OF MAINE )
)
)
)
V. ) Order on Motion to Suppress
)
)
Ricky Jenkins, )
Defendant. )

This matter is before the court on the Defendant's Motion to Suppress. The court has
had an opportunity to review the testimony as well as audio and video recordings
presented to the court for in camera review. After careful consideration of the evidence
as well as the written submissions the court concludes the Defendant's Motion to
Suppress should be denied.

The primary issue in the case relates to whether or not there was a invocation of the
right to counsel which required the cessation of questioning of Mr Jenkins. The
interview took place at the South Portland Police Department at a time when Mr
Jenkins was handcuffed and clearly in custody.

On two separate occasions during the interview Mr Jenkins brought up the issue of
counsel. Detective Levesque inquired whether or not Mr Jenkins was presently
invoking his right to counsel or rather was speaking about some point in the future.

The court concludes Detective Levesque is a credible witness .The court also concludes
that Mr Jenkins was not presently invoking his right to have counsel during the
interview but rather was referring to the need for counsel in the future. Additionally,
Mr. Jenkins reiterated both times that he was willing to continue to talk to the detective.

In Davis v. United States 512 US 45( 1994) The US Supreme Court addressed the issue of
a suspect who stated "maybe I should talk to a lawyer". Davis holds that cessation of
questioning must occur if there is an unambiguous request for counsel. However that
request must be clear and not ambiguous. Here the court concludes there was not a
present request for counsel but rather the expression that one might be necessary in the
future.

This court does not conclude that was a present and clear invocation of the right to
counsel.

. -~
Docket: j- 1 . i,J-i
2 2­
While the defendant is correct that the Miranda rights appeared to have been read
relatively quickly, the defendant did indicate that he understood them and had had
previous experiences having his rights explained. The court concludes his Miranda
waiver was valid.

The consent to obtain a DNA swab was voluntarily given and was not the fruit of the
poisonous tree.

Accordingly, the motion to suppress is denied.

The court also notes however that the state has conceded that statements that occurred
in the absence of Miranda before the audio and video recording began will not be
utilized.

Dated: April 15, 2022
n·r)
JUSTICE, ~ SUPERIOR COURT