You are here: / / 28-Hours Between Arrest and Arraignment Okay
,

28-Hours Between Arrest and Arraignment Okay

The Second Department determined a 28-hour delay between arrest and arraignment did not render defendant’s confession involuntary:

Approximately 28 hours elapsed between the time the police arrested the defendant and the time the defendant made the statement sought to be suppressed. While an undue delay in arraignment is properly considered when assessing the voluntariness of a defendant’s confession, a delay in arraignment alone does not warrant suppression, as it is but one factor in assessing the voluntariness of a confession … . The record does not support the defendant’s claim that the police unnecessarily delayed his arraignment. Here, the delay in arraigning the defendant was attributable to the time it took the police to conduct a thorough investigation and not to a strategically designed plan to permit the defendant to be questioned outside the presence of counsel … . People v Lin, 2013 NY Slip Op 02267, 2008-07244, Ind No 1705/05, 2nd Dept 4-3-13

SUPPRESS, SUPPRESSION

You might also like
IN ORDER TO DIRECT A DEFENDANT TO INSTALL AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE, THE DEFENDANT MUST BE SENTENCED TO A PERIOD OF PROBATION OR A CONDITIONAL DISCHARGE (SECOND DEPT).
Supreme Court Properly Denied a Motion to Approve a Settlement of a Proposed Non-Opt-Out Class Action—Shareholders Who Objected to the Settlement Were Entitled to Opt Out to Preserve Their Damages Claims
In an Employment Discrimination Case, Plaintiff Is a Member of a Protected Class By Virtue of His Wife’s Religion
Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Instead of 3212, the Procedural Irregularity Should Have Been Excused under CPLR 2001
DEFENDANT HOME OWNER DEMONSTRATED HE DID NOT HAVE SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER PLAINTIFF’S WORK AND DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION WHICH ALLEGEDLY RESULTED IN PLAINTIFF’S INJURIES IN THIS LABOR LAW 200 ACTION; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM A NOTICE WITNESS WHO WAS NOT DISCLOSED PRIOR TO THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).
COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH REPLY PAPERS (SECOND DEPT).
ONCE AGAIN THE FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED REVERSAL IN A FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE SECOND DEPARTMENT CAREFULLY EXPLAINED ALL THE FLAWS IN THE PROOF (SECOND DEPT).
Late Notice of Claim Allowed In Absence of Reasonable Excuse

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Detective’s Testimony About Statement Made by Nontestifying Co-Defendant Violated... Criteria for Valid Waiver of Appeal Explained