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
CAUSE OF ACTION BASED UPON A THEORY NOT ALLEGED IN THE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Court Should Not Have Ruled Defendant Could Be Cross-Examined About His Prior Possession of Guns Under Sandoval—Possession of Guns Has No Bearing on Credibility
MIDDLE DRIVER WAS PUSHED INTO PLAINTIFF’S CAR BY THE DRIVER BEHIND, MIDDLE DRIVER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION; BECAUSE THE NOTICE WAS NOT SENT TO EACH BORROWER IN A SEPARATE ENVELOPE THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PROPERLY DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDITIONED ITS SANDOVAL RULING ON WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CROSS-EXAMINES THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR CRIMINAL HISTORIES (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS LABOR LAW ARTICLE 6 AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION FOR UNPAID COMMISSIONS, PLAINTIFF, WHO SUED GAIA PRODUCE AS HIS EMPLOYER, SOUGHT TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD ANOTHER PARTY AS HIS EMPLOYER; BASED UPON THE DEFINITION OF “EMPLOYER” IN THE LABOR LAW, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WAS PROPER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED (SECOND DEPT).
CITY (NYC), NOT ABUTTING LANDOWNERS, RESPONSIBLE FOR MISSING SIDEWALK HYDRANT VALVE COVER PURSUANT TO RULES OF CITY OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REFEREE’S REPORT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS; THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED (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...