You are here: / / STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT WHEN HE WAS HANDCUFFED IN THE BACK SEAT...
,

STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEFENDANT WHEN HE WAS HANDCUFFED IN THE BACK SEAT OF A POLICE CAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED, TANGIBLE EVIDENCE RETRIEVED AS A RESULT OF THE STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED AS WELL (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined defendant’s statements, made when he was handcuffed in the back seat of a police car, should have been suppressed. Defendant had possession of a wallet and had demanded money from the owner of the wallet in exchange for its return. The owner of the wallet went to the police. The police spoke to the defendant on the phone, and he again demanded money for the wallet. The defendant again demanded money for the wallet when the police went to his house. The wallet was retrieved after defendant made the statements in the police car, so the wallet should have been suppressed as well:

Not only was the defendant handcuffed in the back seat of a police vehicle, the detectives testified that the defendant was bargaining with them for his freedom by offering to get the wallet if they would remove the handcuffs and release him. Detective Bookstein specifically testified that the defendant was not free to leave the police vehicle. The record also demonstrates that the statements that the defendant made to the detectives during their conversation with him about the wallet were the result of the functional equivalent of interrogation and should have been suppressed … . People v Torres. 2019 NY Slip Op 03380, Second Dept 5-1-19

 

You might also like
Father’s New York Custody Petition Not Preempted by Dominican Republic Court’s Denial of Father’s Application for Return of the Child
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT WEARING A HARD HAT AND WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD BY DEBRIS DURING DEMOLITION WORK; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE HEAD PROTECTION VIOLATED THE INDUSTRIAL CODE GIVING RISE TO A LABOR LAW 241(6) CAUSE OF ACTION; DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE JOB WAS NOT A HARD HAT JOB; THEREFORE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Under Powers Reserved to the Town by an 1818 Law, the Town Cannot Regulate Shoreline Dune Reconstruction and Erosion Control Undertaken by a Village within the Town
“Assault and Battery” Exclusion from Coverage Applied Even Though Plaintiff Was Not the Intended Target of the Assault
FAILURE TO PRESERVE VIDEO OF UNDERLYING INCIDENT DID NOT WARRANT STRIKING THE ANSWER.
In Court Stipulation Was Valid Postnuptial Agreement; DRL 236(B)(3) Did Not Apply
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE, AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE DECORATIVE FENCE IN THE GRASSY AREA BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT SHOW A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND 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

FINDING OF CIVIL CONTEMPT AGAINST THE CHAIR OF THE NYS PAROLE BOARD WAS WARRANTED,... THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A HOME TO RETRIEVE A HANDGUN DEFENDANT HAD THROWN...