## Facts

- In December 2007, a University of Maine at Farmington student reported that Keith R. Nadeau showed him child pornography on Nadeau’s personal computer in his dorm room.
- Two uniformed, armed university police officers went to Nadeau’s dorm room; one officer recorded the encounter.
- Nadeau allowed the officers to enter his dorm room after they asked for permission.
- After being told of the complaint, Nadeau discussed prior issues involving child pornography on a family computer and stated the files on his current computer were “preexisting” and he had not yet deleted them.
- At the officers’ request, Nadeau displayed images on his computer by scrolling through files.
- Nadeau provided a flash drive containing images when asked to turn over the material; officers also retained his computer.
- A search warrant issued on December 11, 2007 authorized examination of the computer and directed return of the warrant and inventory within ten days.
- The forensic examination was not completed until July 21, 2008, more than seven months after issuance.
- Nadeau was charged with two counts of possession of sexually explicit material under 17-A M.R.S. § 284(1)(A) and entered a conditional guilty plea preserving suppression issues.
- The trial court denied suppression of the digital evidence and Nadeau’s oral and written statements; Nadeau appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the warrantless seizure and search of Nadeau’s computer and flash drive violated the Fourth Amendment, or were justified by voluntary consent (including whether consent was withdrawn).
2. Whether the State’s failure to return the warrant and inventory within ten days and the seven-month delay in completing forensic analysis violated M.R. Crim. P. 41(d) and/or the Fourth Amendment, requiring suppression.
3. Whether Nadeau’s oral and written statements were obtained in violation of Miranda or were involuntary under the totality of the circumstances.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the judgment of conviction and the denial of the motion to suppress.
- The court held that Nadeau voluntarily consented to officers’ entry and to turning over the flash drive, and the trial court did not clearly err in finding no withdrawal of consent by Nadeau.
- The court held that noncompliance with the warrant’s ten-day return/inventory directive and the extended forensic timeline did not, on these facts, require suppression under Rule 41(d) or the Fourth Amendment.
- The court held that Nadeau’s statements were not obtained in violation of Miranda and were voluntary.

## Legal Principles

- A warrantless search or seizure is presumptively unreasonable unless it falls within a recognized exception; consent is an exception the State must prove was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
- Appellate review defers to trial-court factfinding on voluntariness and withdrawal of consent unless clearly erroneous.
- For digital evidence, timely execution and seizure pursuant to a warrant may be distinguished from later forensic examination; a later analysis does not violate the Fourth Amendment if the overall delay is reasonable in light of technical demands and absent bad faith or prejudice.
- Rule-based deficiencies in return and inventory procedures are generally administrative and do not automatically require exclusion absent prejudice or constitutional unreasonableness.
- Miranda warnings are required only for custodial interrogation; questioning in a suspect’s own living space, without restraint, may be noncustodial depending on how a reasonable person would perceive their freedom to leave.
- Voluntariness of statements is assessed under the totality of circumstances; absent coercion or overbearing police conduct, statements are admissible.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the admission of digital evidence and statements because the encounter supported voluntary consent, the delayed computer forensic analysis was not constitutionally unreasonable and did not warrant suppression for a Rule 41(d) return/inventory lapse, and Miranda and voluntariness standards were satisfied.


State v. Nadeau, 1 A.3d 445 (Me. 2010)