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 WAS ENTITLED TO THE VACATION OF THE SENTENCE FOR THE MURDER OF HIS FATHER’S GIRLFRIEND UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 317 PROPERLY GRANTED, DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED IT WAS NOT PERSONALLY SERVED AND THE FAILURE TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE NOTICE (SECOND DEPT)
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED DEFENSE COUNSEL TO SEEK COURT APPROVAL BEFORE ALLOWING INVESTIGATORS OR OTHER EMPLOYEES ACCESS TO RECORDINGS (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE DEFENDANT TOWN DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW YORK VOTING RIGHTS ACT (NYVRA) WOULD FORCE THE TOWN TO VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONSIDERED DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY PAPERS; DEFENDANT ORIGINALLY MOVED FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THEN ARGUED IN REPLY PAPERS IT HAD INTENDED TO MAKE A MOTION TO DISMISS (SECOND DEPT).
INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR FAILURE TO INCLUDE A NECESSARY PARTY, SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE ORDERED THE PARTY SUMMONED PURSUANT TO CPLR 1001 (b) (SECOND DEPT).
Even Though the Landlords Maintained Offices Adjacent to the Leased Property (a Restaurant), the Plaintiff Was Not Able to Raise a Question of Fact About Whether the Landlords Retained Control Over the Leased Premises Such that the Landlords Would Be Liable for an Assault by Employees and Patrons of the Tenant-Restaurant
PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT THE LEAD DRIVER’S COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE 2ND 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...