State v. Koehler

Decision Date31 August 2010
Docket NumberCriminal Action CR-09-161
PartiesSTATE OF MAINE, Plaintiff, v. COLIN KOEHLER, Defendant.
CourtMaine Superior Court

State's Attorney: Andrew Benson, ADA Attorney General's Office

Defense Attorneys: Peter Cyr, Esq., Richard Hartley, Esq.

DECISION & ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Pending before the Court is the defendant's Motion to Suppress, filed pursuant to M.R. Crim. P. 41 A, in which the defendant seeks to suppress various statements obtained by law enforcement officers during the course of investigating the death of Holly Boutilier. Hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2010, and on July 1, 2010. The specific issues raised by the defendant's motion are: (1) whether detectives obtained statements during a custodial interrogation in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); (2) whether the statements the defendant made during the custodial interrogation were "voluntary" within the meaning of Art. I, § 6 of the Maine Constitution and; (3) whether statements the defendant allegedly made to other inmates in Penobscot County Jail and relayed to law enforcement offers were obtained in violation of the defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

BACKGROUND

As alleged by the State, the defendant, along with the co-defendant, Justin Ptasznski, met Holly Boutilier on the Saturday, August 8, 2009, while walking in the area of downtown Bangor. The defendant and Ptaszynski allegedly led Ms. Boutilier to a secluded area on the banks of the Penobscot River frequented by area homeless persons. The defendant and Ms. Boutilier entered a shack seasonally occupied by Ansel Gould, a member of the Bangor homeless community. It is the State's position that the defendant brandished a weapon and stabbed Ms. Boutilier at some point when she became distracted while standing in the shack. Gould discovered Ms. Boutilier's body in the shack on Sunday, August 9, 2009.

After discovering Ms. Boutilier's body, Gould contacted the Bangor Police Department. Detectives Timothy Cotton and Brent Beaulieu were among the BPD officers responding to the call and assumed duties as lead investigators. After gathering physical evidence and conducting interviews with Ptaszynski and other friends of the defendant, Detectives Cotton and Beaulieu confirmed certain suspicions that the defendant may have been involved in the death of Ms. Boutilier.

On August 11, 2009, BPD detectives sought and obtained a search warrant for the defendant's Bangor residence. BPD officers converged on the defendant's apartment to execute the search warrant, notified him of police presence, and requested entry. The defendant initially refused to answer the door and failed to answer repeated calls to his phone. Following a three-hour standoff, the Bangor Special Response Team ("SRT") was given orders to take the defendant into custody. SRT inserted tear gas into the defendant's apartment in order to induce compliance and remove him from the premises. Shortly after the administration of tear gas, the defendant emerged from the apartment.

SRT immediately took the defendant into custody, placed him in wrist restraints, and escorted him to an unmarked police cruiser occupied by BPD Detectives Cotton and Beaulieu. Once in the cruiser, and while in route to the BPD stationhouse only a few blocks away, Detective Cotton administered Miranda warnings from a card provided by the Maine Attorney General's Office.

Once at the stationhouse, the Detectives Cotton and Beaulieu placed the defendant in an interview room and removed his wrist restraints. Detectives Cotton and Beaulieu proceeded to interrogate the defendant for the better part of 3.5 to 4 hours before the defendant, after Detective Cotton's second recitation of Miranda warnings, asked why he had been not provided a lawyer and indicated that he would only continue talking to them with a lawyer present. At that point, Detectives Cotton and Beaulieu terminated the interview and transported the defendant to the Penobscot County Jail for formal booking on murder charges.

The State seeks to introduce at trial certain statements the defendant made while being interrogated by Detectives Cotton and Beaulieu. The defendant claims that the statements he made during the taped interview of August 11, 2009 were obtained in violation of Miranda and otherwise rendered involuntarily. The defendant seeks suppression of all statements made during the interview.

While housed in Penobscot County Jail, the defendant allegedly made certain statements to other inmates potentially implicating himself in the death of Ms. Boutilier. The inmates, in turn, relayed the substance of these incriminating statements and admissions to law enforcement authorities through a series of jailhouse interviews conducted by Detectives Cotton and Beaulieu. The defendant denies having made the statements and maintains that such statements were nonetheless procured by active police involvement with the jailhouse informants, and therefore, obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

DISCUSSION
A. The August 11, 2009 Interrogation
1. Miranda Waiver

The State concedes that the defendant was "in custody" at the time he emerged from his residence and SRT members placed him in handcuffs. See State v. Poblete, 2010 ME 37, ¶ 22 n.5, 993 A.2d 1104, 1101 (quoting State v. Michaud, 1998 ME 251, ¶ 4, 724 A.2d 1222, 1226) (outlining the objective factors Maine courts use to determine whether a person is "in custody"). Members of SRT escorted the defendant approximately 75 feet from the entrance of his apartment to the unmarked police cruiser occupied by BPD Detectives Cotton and Beaulieu. The record before the court, including the Detective Cotton's testimony during the May 25, 2010, hearing, discloses that BPD officers did not direct any questions to the defendant as he was being escorted to, and ultimately placed in, the unmarked police cruiser. The first verbal contact between law enforcement officials and the defendant occurred at the moment Detective Cotton made sure the person who had emerged from the gassed apartment was, in fact, the defendant. Immediately thereafter, Detective Cotton recited Miranda warnings from a card provided by the Maine Attorney General's Office. Detectives Cotton and Beaulieu then transported the defendant back to the BPD and began interrogating the defendant in the late afternoon of August 11, 2009. State v Dion, 2007 ME 87, ¶ 21, 928 A.2d 746, 750 (citing State v. Bridges, 2003 ME 103, ¶ 23, 829 A.2d 247, 254) ("A person who is in custody and subject to interrogation must be advised of the rights referred to in Miranda v. Arizona in order for statements made during the interrogation to be admissible against him or her at trial.").

Whether the statements the defendant made during the stationhouse interview were a product of a valid waiver of his Miranda rights, including his Fifth Amendment right to have counsel present during the interview, is the focus of the first part of the defendant's Motion to Suppress.

Among the foundational principles infused into Miranda jurisprudence, "a suspect subject to custodial interrogation" must be informed of "the right to consult with an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning." State v. Neilsen, 2008 ME 77, ¶ 15, 946 A.2d 382, 386 (citing Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 469-70, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)). In order for the suspect to effect a valid waiver of his Miranda rights, the State carries the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that any statements obtained during a custodial interrogation "were preceded by clear Miranda warnings, " State v. Langill, 567 A.2d 440, 444 (Me. 1989), and that the waiver itself was made "knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, " State v. Coombs, 1998 ME 1, ¶¶ 13, 15, 704 A.2d 387, 391-92 (citation omitted).

At that point when the defendant entered the unmarked police cruiser, Detective Cotton administered, verbatim from a card provided by the Maine Attorney General's Office, Miranda warnings. A review of the audio recording, supplemented by a written transcript, reveals the following verbal exchange between Detective Cotton and the defendant:

Detective Cotton (DC): What's your name sir? Colin what? Ok, Colin I'm a law enforcement officer, I to ask you some questions. Before I do, I want to explain your rights. You have an absolute right to remain silent. Do you understand that?
Colin Koehler (CK): Yeah.
DC: Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand that? CK: Yeah.
DC: You have the absolute right to the advice of a lawyer before any questioning and the presence of a lawyer here with you during questioning. Do you understand that?
CK: Yup.
DC: If you . . . does that mean you understand? Ok. If you cannot afford a lawyer one will be furnished to you free before any question if you desire. Do you understand that?
CK: Yeah.
DC: Ok. If you decide to answer questions now, with or without an attorney present you have the right to stop answering at any time or to stop at any time until you can talk to a lawyer. Do you understand that? CK: Yeah.
DC: Now having all those rights which I just explained to you in mind do you wish to answer questions at this time?
CK: Sure.

(Tr. of 8/11/09 Interview at 1.) Evident from the exchange, Detective Cotton administered clear Miranda warnings at the critical moment when the SRT officers placed the defendant in an unmarked police cruiser.[1] The defendant has presented no evidence to suggest that Detective Cotton's Miranda recitation was unclear, misread or incomplete.

More importantly, the defendant's replies to Detective Cotton's Miran...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT