You are here: / / Questioning of Defendant Did Not Constitute “Custodial Interrogation”...
,

Questioning of Defendant Did Not Constitute “Custodial Interrogation”

The Third Department determined County Court should not have suppressed defendant’s statements as the product of custodial interrogation. The police investigation had led to defendant’s IP address being associated with accessing child pornography on the Internet. The investigator went to defendant’s place of employment and asked the defendant to accompany him to the police station, which the defendant agreed to do:

The testimony … revealed that defendant was brought to a room at the police station where he was interviewed for a total of no more than 30 minutes. During the brief period that preceded the Miranda warnings, defendant was not handcuffed or restrained in any manner and the investigators did not do anything to convey that defendant was not free to leave … . Moreover, the two questions that preceded the Miranda warnings – the first asked defendant for his address and the second inquired into defendant’s Internet service – were investigatory, as opposed to accusatory. Considering the totality of the circumstances, and in light of County Court’s determinations that [the interrogating officer] was “frank, candid, and trustworthy and [that] his testimony had the general force and flavor of credibility,” we find that the People met their burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s pre-Miranda statements were not the product of a custodial interrogation… . People v Henry, 106048, 3rd Dept 2-20-14

 

You might also like
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE GROUND FOR SUPPRESSION OF A SHOTGUN AND SHOTGUN SHELL RELIED ON BY COUNTY COURT; ALTHOUGH THE PEOPLE RAISED OTHER GROUNDS FOR JUSTIFICATION OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, THOSE GROUNDS CANNOT BE ADDRESSED ON APPEAL BECAUSE COUNTY COURT DID NOT RULE ON THEM; MATTER REMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE PEOPLE’S OTHER ARGUMENTS (THIRD DEPT).
“Indirect Audit” to Determine Cash Receipts in Restaurant Okay
THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT APPLY TO SAVE THE AMENDED PETITION CHALLENGING A USE VARIANCE; THE INTITIAL PETITION FAILED TO NAME A NECESSARY PARTY WHO WAS KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS AND WAS DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND; THE AMENDED PEITITION, WHICH NAMED THE NECESSARY PARTY, WAS DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED; BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS HAD NO DOUBT ABOUT WHO THE NECESSARY PARTY WAS AND HAD NAMED HER IN A PRIOR PETITION, THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE COULD NOT BE INVOKED (THIRD DEPT).
MEDICAL COURIERS WERE EMPLOYEES.
EVEN WHERE PLAINTIFF CAN NOT DEMONSTRATE SERIOUS INJURY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NO-FAULT LAW, PLAINTIFF MAY BE ABLE TO RECOVER ECONOMIC LOSS ABOVE THE STATUTORY BASIC ECONOMIC LOSS ($50,000).
A SANDOVAL RULING ADDRESSED THE ADMISSIBILITY OF LIMITED REFERENCE TO DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CONVICTION ON CROSS-EXAMINATION; AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED RAPE, THE DEFENDANT TOLD THE VICTIM HE HAD SPENT SEVERAL YEARS IN PRISON; WITHOUT SEEKING A PRIOR VENTIMIGLIA RULING, THE PEOPLE INFORMED THE JURY ABOUT DEFENDANT’S “YEARS IN PRISON” STATEMENT TO THE VICTIM IN THE OPENING; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
THE STRIP SEARCH OF DEFENDANT WAS JUSTIFIED AND CONDUCTED PROPERLY (THIRD DEPT).
RESPONDENT THREATENED SELF HARM AND WAS TAKEN INTO CUSTODY PURSUANT TO THE MENTAL HYGIENE LAW; THE JUDGE DECLINED TO ISSUE A TEMPORARY “EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER” (ERPO) AND SET THE MATTER DOWN FOR A HEARING; SUBSEQUENTLY THE JUDGE, SUA SPONTE, CANCELED THE HEARING AND DISMISSED THE PETITION, ACTIONS FOR WHICH THE JUDGE HAD NO AUTHORITY; MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).

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

Presentation of Evidence of an Uncharged Offense Without Seeking a Ruling on... Attorney Was an “Employee,” Not an Independent Contractor, for Puposes...