You are here: / / MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT...
,

MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE RESIDED AT THE APARTMENT WHERE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS IN RESPONSE TO PEDIGREE QUESTIONS.

The First Department determined the defendant’s statement that he lived in the apartment which was searched and where contraband was found did not require Miranda warnings or a 710.30 notice:

Neither Miranda warnings nor CPL 710.30(1)(a) notice was required with respect to defendant’s statement, in response to a detective’s pedigree question, that his residence was the apartment where the police had executed a search warrant and discovered contraband. The detective’s routine administrative questioning was not designed to elicit an incriminating response … , even if the answer was reasonably likely to be incriminating … . People v Martin, 2017 NY Slip Op 01309, 1st Dep 2-21-17

CRIMINAL LAW (MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE RESIDED AT THE APARTMENT WHERE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS IN RESPONSE TO PEDIGREE QUESTIONS)/SUPPRESSION (CRIMINAL LAW, PEDIGREE INFORMATION, (MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE RESIDED AT THE APARTMENT WHERE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS IN RESPONSE TO PEDIGREE QUESTIONS)/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE RESIDED AT THE APARTMENT WHERE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS IN RESPONSE TO PEDIGREE QUESTIONS)/PEDIGREE QUESTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE RESIDED AT THE APARTMENT WHERE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS IN RESPONSE TO PEDIGREE QUESTIONS)/MIRANDA WARNINGS (MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE RESIDED AT THE APARTMENT WHERE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS IN RESPONSE TO PEDIGREE QUESTIONS)/CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW (CPL) 710.30 NOTICE (MIRANDA WARNINGS AND 710.30 NOTICE NOT REQUIRED, DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT HE RESIDED AT THE APARTMENT WHERE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS IN RESPONSE TO PEDIGREE QUESTIONS)

You might also like
NEW JERSEY FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS (FIRST DEPT).
Homeowner’s Exemption Applied/Fact that Three Unrelated Families Lived in the Home Did Not Negate the Finding that the Home Was a Single Family Dwelling
Transit Authority Employee Properly Found Negligent In Not Summoning Help for Police Officers Injured While Making an Arrest in a Subway Station
ACCIDENT CAUSED BY HIGH PRESSURE, NOT GRAVITY; INJURY NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).
OHIO TRUSTEE’S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT PURSUANT TO A ROYALTY AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW YORK PLAINTIFF DID NOT CONFER JURISDICTION UPON NEW YORK, DESPITE A NEW YORK CHOICE OF LAW PROVISION (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS TOLD HE FACED A 45-YEAR SENTENCE AFTER TRIAL WHEN THE ACTUAL SENTENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN CAPPED AT 20 YEARS; DEFENDANT’S DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY WAS NOT KNOWINGLY AND VOLUNTARILY MADE (FIRST DEPT).
Notice of Claim Timely Served by an Unauthorized Method Deemed Valid/Motion to Renew Based Upon Information Known at the Time of the Original Motion Properly Heard in Exercise of Discretion
PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT, A GENERAL SURGEON, DID NOT ASSERT KNOWLEDGE OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND THEREFORE DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT IN THE FACE OF DEFENDANTS’ GASTROENTEROLOGY EXPERTS.

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FIVE HOUR BREAK SUFFICIENT TO DISSIPATE EFFECT OF THE MIRANDA VIOLATION. ALTHOUGH THE INSURANCE POLICY EXCLUDED WATER DAMAGE AND THE INSURED PROPERTY...