The decision in State of Maine v. McLain clarifies that police must obtain a clear waiver of rights during interrogations, expanding state-level protections even as federal courts have weakened Miranda rights.
AUGUSTA – The Maine Supreme Judicial Court today ruled that police must secure an explicit waiver of the right against self-incrimination before questioning a suspect in custody without counsel, and that they must also halt interrogation to seek clarification if the suspect asserts their rights ambiguously. The landmark ruling strengthens safeguards for the right to remain silent and the right to counsel found in Article 1, Section 6, of the Maine State Constitution, offering stronger protections than those in the U.S. Constitution. The ACLU of Maine filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case and presented oral arguments before the court in December 2022.
The case, State of Maine v. Derric McLain, originated when Mr. McLain appealed a trial court decision allowing statements he made in police custody to be used as evidence against him in a criminal trial. 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. McLain’s lawyers 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 Law Court agreed with Mr. McLain and reversed the lower court’s order denying Mr. McLain’s motion to suppress evidence gathered in police custody. The court wrote that “someone in custody must actually waive the privilege against self-incrimination in order for an interrogation to occur or continue,” and that it must “be clear and unequivocal, like we require for all waivers of constitutional rights.” The court added that “if the waiver of the privilege is ambiguous, an officer must, before any questioning, stop to clarify whether the individual is in fact waiving the privilege against self-incrimination. If, after a suspect waives the privilege against self-incrimination, there is any ambiguous invocation of the privilege, including the attendant right to counsel, the officer must stop any questioning and clarify whether the individual is attempting to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination. If the privilege is being invoked, questioning must cease.”
The court noted that it has long held “that the Maine Constitution provides greater protections against self-incrimination than that of the United States Constitution.” This decision expands protections in Maine, departing from the U.S. Supreme Court’s view that police interrogation can continue when a suspect invokes their rights ambiguously. The Law Court explained that the U.S. Supreme Court’s view could disadvantage the most vulnerable members of our society, referencing research showing people who use more ambiguous speech are more likely to be of lower socioeconomic status, young people, people of color, immigrants, and women.
“We are pleased that Maine’s highest court agrees that our state constitution provides stronger protections against self-incrimination than federal courts have found in the U.S. Constitution,” said ACLU of Maine Legal Director Carol Garvan. “Our rights are only meaningful if we can exercise them. Police have an obligation to stop interrogations and seek clarification when a suspect ambiguously asserts their right to an attorney or invokes their right to remain silent. Broad Miranda protections are essential to deter coercive police questioning, guarantee trustworthy evidence, and safeguard fundamental trial rights. Though federal courts may continue eroding some of our most basic rights, it is essential that state courts embrace state constitutions to uphold our fundamental rights and freedoms.”
Read the court’s decision here or in the PDF at the bottom of this page.
