You are here: / / THE RECORDED CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE 15-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT AND HIS FATHER...
, ,

THE RECORDED CONVERSATION BETWEEN THE 15-YEAR-OLD DEFENDANT AND HIS FATHER IN THE POLICE INTERVIEW ROOM IS PROTECTED BY PARENT-CHILD PRIVILEGE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing defendant’s murder convictions, determined the recorded conversation between the 15-year-old defendant and his father in the interview room at the police station was protected by parent-child privilege and should have been suppressed. The defendant had requested a lawyer and the police had left the interview room at the time the conversation was recorded:

We conclude that a parent-child privilege did arise under the circumstances of this case … . The application of the privilege is not dependent on a finding of police misconduct … . … [W]e recognize, as other courts have, that a young defendant will naturally look to a parent “as a primary source of help and advice” …  The statements defendant now seeks to suppress were made in an attempt to utilize his father as such a source of assistance. “It would not be consistent with basic fairness to exact as a price for that assistance, his acquiescence to the overhearing presence of government agents” … . People v Kemp, 2023 NY Slip Op 00776, Fourth Dept 2-10-23

Practice Point: Here the Fourth Department recognized a parent-child privilege and suppressed a recorded conversation between the 15-year-old defendant and his father which took place in the police interview room. The defendant had just requested a lawyer and the police had left the room. But the recording equipment was still operating.

 

You might also like
CRITERIA FOR AN EASEMENT BY NECESSITY EXPLAINED, NOT MET HERE; THE NECESSITY MUST EXIST AT THE TIME THE LANDLOCKED PARCEL WAS SEVERED; PROOF OF A FUTURE INTENT TO USE THE PARCEL FOR PERSONAL PARKING WAS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
FOR CAUSE CHALLENGE TO JUROR, BASED UPON IMPLIED BIAS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, JUROR’S LIFE WAS SAVED BY THE TRAUMA SURGEON WHO TESTIFIED ABOUT THE VICTIM’S WOUNDS, MULTIPLE STAB WOUNDS DID NOT SUPPORT LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF RECKLESS ASSAULT (FOURTH DEPT).
PROSECUTOR’S REMARKS IN SUMMATION REQUIRED REVERSAL.
Evidence Seized In Violation of Probationer’s Constitutional Rights Should Not Have Been Used as the Basis for a Probation Revocation
ALTHOUGH THE DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE INVOLVING A LIMOUSINE BUS WAS REVERSED ON APPEAL, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT ADDRESS ON APPEAL THE ASPECT OF THE DECISION WHICH DISMISSED THE FAILURE-TO-PROVIDE-SEATBELTS CAUSE OF ACTION; THEREFORE ANY CHALLENGE TO THAT ASPECT OF THE DISMISSAL WAS ABANDONED BY PLAINTIFFS (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENDANT SAW THE VEHICLE WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY RAN THE STOP SIGN AND THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TOO FAST TO STOP; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN EVASIVE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
PETITIONER SEX OFFENDER HAD THE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM A RULING WHICH GRANTED RELIEF REQUESTED IN THE ALTERNATIVE BUT DENIED THE MORE COMPLETE RELIEF REQUESTED, EVIDENCE SUPPORTED FINDING THAT PETITIONER SUFFERED FROM A MENTAL ABNORMALITY AND REQUIRED A REGIMEN OF STRICT AND INTENSIVE SUPERVISION AND TREATMENT (SIST) (FOURTH DEPT).
TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE REMITTED FOR A DETERMINATION WHETHER THE STATE WAS LIABLE UNDER A SECOND IMPACT THEORY, EVEN THOUGH THE STATE WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CAUSING THE DRIVER TO COLLIDE WITH THE STEEL BEAMS ACROSS THE ENTRANCES TO THE CLOSED BRIDGE, THE STEEL BEAMS WERE WELDED TO THE BRIDGE AT A HEIGHT WHICH ALLOWED A CAR TO PASS UNDER THEM, CONSTITUTING A DANGEROUS CONDITION AS A MATTER OF LAW (FOURTH 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 PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT WHEN DEFENDANT HAD THE... DEFENDANT WAS IMPROPERLY SUBSTITUTED AS A JOHN DOE IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION...