Maine v. McLain - Miranda Rights

This landmark case expanded Maine people’s rights when under police interrogation, offering stronger protections than federal law. We filed a friend-of-the-court brief and argued before Maine’s highest court.

In a victory for the rights of Maine people, the court issued a landmark ruling strengthening the right to remain silent and access an attorney when under police interrogation. It specifically requires police to stop questioning suspects if they invoke their right to remain silent or request counsel – even if their request is ambiguous or happens in the middle of questioning.

The right to counsel and right to the remain silent are essential freedoms that can prevent coercion when a person is accused of a crime or interrogated by police. This ruling provides stronger safeguards than those provided by the U.S. Supreme Court’s current interpretation of the federal Constitution. This case is an important example of how state constitutions and state courts can provide stronger protections at the state level when federal courts fail to do so.

On June 12, 2020, Derric McLain was charged with aggravated trafficking of a scheduled drug. When Mr. McLain was brought to jail for questioning, he was read his Miranda rights. When asked by police if he wished to answer questions, McLain asked, “Is there a lawyer here?” The officers responded, “no,” and then proceeded to interrogate McLain.

Mr. McLain asked the Penobscot County Superior Court to suppress the statements he made while in custody. He argued that he did not waive his right against self-incrimination and was invoking his right to counsel by asking if there was a lawyer present, but the officers ignored his request.

The court denied Mr. McLain's motion and allowed his statements to be used as evidence against him in the jury trial. The jury returned a guilty verdict, and McLain was sentenced to 15 years in the Department of Corrections.

Mr. McLain appealed his criminal conviction, arguing that the court was wrong to deny his motion to suppress the statements because officers ignored his request for legal counsel.

In September 2021, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court invited friend-of-the-court briefs in Mr. McLain's appeal, seeking arguments about how explicitly criminal defendants must assert their Miranda rights.

We argued that the state’s constitution provides stronger safeguards than the U.S. Supreme Court's current interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Police have an obligation to stop interrogations – except to ask clarifying questions about whether the defendant is asserting their rights – even if the defendant is ambiguous in requesting an attorney or invoking their right to remain silent. Broad Miranda protections are essential to deter coercive police questioning, guarantee trustworthy evidence, and safeguard fundamental trial rights.

On Tuesday, December 6, 2022, the ACLU of Maine presented oral arguments to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.

On August 29, 2025, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court issued a landmark ruling strengthening the right to remain silent and access an attorney, as guaranteed by the Maine State Constitution. The ruling requires police to stop questioning suspects if they invoke their right to remain silent or request counsel – even if their request is ambiguous or happens in the middle of questioning. This expands Maine state constitutional protections beyond the U.S. Supreme Court's restrictive view of federal Miranda rights.

Even when federal courts erode or limit federal constitutional protections, this victory shows how state constitutions can serve as important sources of more expansive rights and freedoms.