A Maine man claimed that a state police detective violated his constitutional right to substantive due process by engaging in conduct that would "shock the conscience" while questioning him about the suspected sexual abuse of a ten-year-old child. A federal appeals court has upheld a determination that the detective's conduct in the interrogation was not conduct that would shock the conscience, so that the detective was entitled to summary judgment.

The detective set up a tape-recorded, non-custodial interview with the man after speaking to a boy who claimed that the man sexually abused him. The interview indicates that the detective was aware of the man's past criminal history, and that the suspect acknowledged to the detective that he had been placed in an intensive therapy program because of his sexual behavior. The detective told the suspect that "this stuff stays confidential, especially because a juvenile is involved." Later during the interview, the suspect admitted to having sexual contact with the child.