State of Maine v. Seth M. Johansen
105 A.3d 433
Me.2014Background
- Johansen pled guilty in 2012 to multiple burglary, theft, and criminal mischief offenses and received two years’ imprisonment with two years of probation.
- One probation condition required him to refrain from all criminal conduct and violations of law.
- In Feb. 2013, police investigated a neighbor’s burglary and learned of an outstanding probation warrant.
- Johansen initially invoked his right to silence when questioned; later, without repeating full Miranda warnings, he voluntarily confessed to burglary and identified incriminating items.
- The probation revocation hearing admitted Johansen’s confessions as evidence to prove the alleged probation violations.
- The trial court admitted the confessions under a due process framework and denied the motion to suppress; Johansen was found to have violated probation and was reincarcerated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether confessions obtained after an initial invocation must be excluded in probation revocation. | Johansen argues Miranda suppression should apply to probation revocation. | State contends probation revocation is not a criminal proceeding requiring Miranda-based suppression. | Confessions admissible; no suppression required absent widespread police harassment or due process violation. |
| Whether the confessions were admissible under the due process framework and prior Maine precedents. | Johansen asserts due process requires exclusion of tainted statements. | State relies on Caron and Murphy to limit exclusionary reach in probation contexts. | Admission proper; no widespread policing misconduct shown and statements were voluntary. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. James, 797 A.2d 732 (Me. 2002) (Miranda admissibility in probation context referenced by trial court)
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (exclusion not required in probation proceedings absent serious due process violation)
- United States v. York, 357 F.3d 14 (1st Cir. 2004) (probation revocation not criminal proceeding for purposes of Miranda suppression)
- United States v. MacKenzie, 601 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1979) (Miranda prophylaxis in probation revocation not automatic)
- United States v. Johnson, 455 F.2d 932 (5th Cir. 1972) (probation revocation not adversarial criminal proceeding for Miranda scope)
- State v. Caron, 334 A.2d 495 (Me. 1975) (non-criminal probation context allows exclusionary rule to be tempered in revocation)