EVERY STATEMENT DEFENDANT MADE AFTER HE TOLD THE OFFICERS “I AIN’T GOT NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT” SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
The Fourth Department, vacating defendant’s guilty plea, determined defendant had unequivocally asserted his right to remain silent and all statements defendant made thereafter should have been suppressed:
After defendant indicated that he understood [the Miranda] rights, the officer asked whether defendant would agree to waive them and speak to the officer. Defendant did not respond in the affirmative. Instead, he said, “I ain’t got nothing to talk about. I just want to go to jail. I want to go to sleep.” * * *
… [D]efendant said in no uncertain terms that he did not want to talk to the officer and instead wanted to be taken to jail … , and “[n]o reasonable police officer could have interpreted that statement as anything other than a desire not to talk to the police” … . The officer nevertheless continued to ask defendant questions that were “reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response” … . Under the circumstances, we conclude that the court’s determination that defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent is “unsupported by the record” … . People v Williams, 2025 NY Slip Op 07158, Fourth Dept 12-23-25
Practice Point: If a defendant tells the police “I ain’t got nothing to talk about” and the police continue questioning him, that is a Miranda violation requiring suppression.
