You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS NOT FREE TO LEAVE AFTER A STREET STOP AND WAS INTERROGATED...
,

DEFENDANT WAS NOT FREE TO LEAVE AFTER A STREET STOP AND WAS INTERROGATED WITHOUT HAVING BEEN AFFORDED THE MIRANDA WARNINGS; THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court and suppressing defendant’s statements, determined defendant was in custody after a street stop and was interrogated without the Miranda warnings:

At a pretrial suppression hearing, a police officer testified … he stopped the defendant and another male, both of whom matched the description of individuals suspected of leaving the scene of a motor vehicle accident where a motorcyclist had been struck. At that time, the defendant and the other male were detained and were not “free to leave.” Further, at least ten police vehicles responded to the location, along with several officers.

Thereafter, without advising the defendant of his Miranda rights … , a state trooper asked the defendant his name and performed a “quick cursory pat down” of the defendant’s person. The state trooper then engaged in what he indicated was a “more detailed conversation” with the defendant. Specifically, the state trooper inquired whether the defendant was the operator of the subject vehicle. According to the state trooper, in response thereto, the defendant initially admitted that he was the operator of that vehicle, but then “quickly corrected himself and stated that he took the train” to the location. The state trooper proceeded to ask the defendant additional details relating to the train trip, including “which train he took to that location, which stop he got off at, and where his trip began.” The state trooper testified that the defendant “couldn’t give . . . an answer to any of those questions.” At the time that the state trooper asked these questions, the defendant was placed with his hands on the hood of a police car. Additionally, the “entire street was pretty much blocked off by police vehicles.” People v Trice, 2023 NY Slip Op 01015, Second Dept 2-22-23

Practice Point: Here the defendant was stopped on the street and several police vehicles and ten police officers were at the scene. A state trooper questioned him while defendant was standing with his hands on the hood of a police car. The defendant was in custody and had not been afforded the Miranda warnings. His statements should have been suppressed.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT STORE NOT ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRACKED-IN-WATER SLIP AND FALL CASE.
DEFENDANT FIRED INTO THE CAR AHEAD DURING A HIGH SPEED CHASE, DEPRAVED INDIFFERENCE MURDER AND ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AFFIRMED, TESTIMONY FROM THE FIRST TRIAL BY A WITNESS WHO HAD SINCE BEEN DEPORTED PROPERLY ADMITTED (SECOND DEPT).
STATE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE APPELLANT SEX OFFENDER WAS UNABLE TO CONTROL HIS BEHAVIOR, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING DIFFICULTY CONTROLLING HIS BEHAVIOR; THEREFORE RELEASE WITH STRICT SUPERVISION, AS OPPOSED TO CIVIL COMMITMENT, WAS ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED WHEN AN UNPROTECTED TRENCH CAVED IN AND COLLAPSED; THE ABSENCE OF ANY SAFETY DEVICES, LIKE A SAFETY RAILING, VIOLATED LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED PENDENTE LITE MAINTENANCE DESPITE WAIVER OF MAINTENANCE UPON TERMINATION OF THE MARRIAGE IN THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT, SUPREME COURT FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DEVIATION FROM THE CHILD SUPPORT STANDARDS ACT IN ITS AWARD OF PENDENTE LITE CHILD SUPPORT, CASE REMITTED.
PLAINTIFF BANK SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT BY ADDING PARTIES AND TO EXTEND THE REACH OF THE ACTION TO THE ENTIRE PREMISES WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY ADVERSE POSSESSION (SECOND DEPT).
DOG-BITE STRICT LIABILITY LAW SUCCINCTLY EXPLAINED, DOG-OWNER’S CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE PROBATION CONDITION REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SUPPORT DEPENDENTS AND MEET FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES WAS NOT REASONABLY RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S REHABILITATION; DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF ASSAULT (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

THE EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED THE SEIZED SUBSTANCES CONTAINED HEROIN OR COCAINE... THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT, QUASI CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT COMPLAINT SHOULD...