You are here: / / DEFEFNDANT’S STATEMENTS WERE ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY...
,

DEFEFNDANT’S STATEMENTS WERE ADMISSIBLE PURSUANT TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY EXCEPTION TO THE MIRANDA REQUIREMENT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined the statements defendant made while handcuffed were admissible because the statements were made in response to questions posed for safety reasons and not to elicit an incriminating response:

County Court also properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress the statement that he made to law enforcement while being patted down. Although defendant was handcuffed, in custody and had not been advised of his Miranda rights when he was asked by Haven whether the handgun that was retrieved from his back pocket was loaded, said inquiry was not made to elicit an incriminating response, but was made for the purpose of alleviating the inherent risk of securing a potentially loaded weapon and protecting the safety of defendant, responding officers and those other individuals present during the execution of the warrant … . Accordingly, [the] question fell squarely within the public safety exception to the Miranda requirement and, therefore, suppression of defendant’s statement was appropriately denied … . People v Rashid, 2021 NY Slip Op 04390, Second Dept 7-15-21

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S PLEA COLLOQUY NEGATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT (JURAT) OF HIS PERJURY CONVICTIONS; PLEA VACATED (THIRD DEPT).
ABSENT A FINDING OF PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY, CLAIMANT NEED NOT SHOW ATTACHMENT TO THE LABOR MARKET AND IS ENTITLED TO RELY ON HER CHIROPRACTOR’S OPINION SHE IS TEMPORARILY TOTALLY DISABLED (THIRD DEPT).
SUNY POTSDAM’S SEXUAL MISCONDUCT DETERMINATION ANNULLED, NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IMPOSITION OF A HARSHER PENALTY AFTER STUDENT’S APPEAL CRITICIZED.
Attack on Plaintiff Upon Leaving Defendant-Lodge’s Premises Not Foreseeable—Landowner Had No Duty to Take Measures to Protect Against the Attack—Evidence Lodge Is Located in a “High Crime” Area Insufficient to Render Such an Attack Foreseeable
THE RECORD DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE WAIVER OF INDICTMENT WAS SIGNED IN OPEN COURT, A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THERE WAS A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR PLAINTIFF’S COLLIDING WITH THE REAR OF DEFENDANT’S CAR 3RD DEPT.
PLAINTIFF IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING A PARTY AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN; TWO OF THE THREE PRONGS OF THE RELATION BACK DOCTRINE WERE NOT DEMONSTRATED (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON POWER LINES WHILE SUSPENDED FROM A HELICOPTER WHEN THE HELICOPTER LOST CONTROL AND CRASHED; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW 200, 240 AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION WERE NOT PREEMPTED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ACT (FAA) (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

THE OPENING OF A CARTON OF CIGARETTES AS PART OF A SEARCH OF THE CARGO IN PETITIONER’S... IN A MATTER OF FIRST IMPRESSION, THE APPELLATE COURT DETERMINED COUNTY COURT...