immediate and complete explanation. Indeed, Dodge acknowledged that he understood their conversation would not be kept private. Although the trial court acknowledged the thoroughness of the detective’s warning, it concluded nonetheless that any statements made after the initial misstatement were not “free of the taint created by the initial inducement.” Accordingly, we consider whether the detective’s attempt to remedy any misimpression of confidentiality effectively cured the taint created by the detective’s earlier misstatement. [¶ 18] A false police assurance of confidentiality in a noncustodial setting may result in suppression if not promptly remedied. See McConkie, 2000 ME 158, ¶11, 755 A.2d at 1078-79; see also United States v. Walton, 10 F.3d 1024, 1027, 1030 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Neither we nor other jurisdictions have
holding that an individuals statements were involuntary in a noncustodial setting when a police officer familiar with the defendant told him that he could speak off the cuff and where the police misled the defendant concerning confidentiality holding that scope of employment was an issue for the jury where a chicago police officer was off duty but within the city limits when he shot the plaintiff holding that no seizure occurred where the defendant initially stopped in compliance with a police officers order but then drove off quickly before the police officer could reach the suspects car holding that the defendant was placed in official detention when two police officers approached him and told him that he was under arrest as the defendant could not reasonably have believed that he was free to leave holding that a confession was voluntary despite the fact that an officer falsely told the defendant that physical evidence connected him to the crime