You are here: / / Questioning of Defendant Did Not Constitute “Custodial Interrogation”...
,

Questioning of Defendant Did Not Constitute “Custodial Interrogation”

The Third Department determined County Court should not have suppressed defendant’s statements as the product of custodial interrogation. The police investigation had led to defendant’s IP address being associated with accessing child pornography on the Internet. The investigator went to defendant’s place of employment and asked the defendant to accompany him to the police station, which the defendant agreed to do:

The testimony … revealed that defendant was brought to a room at the police station where he was interviewed for a total of no more than 30 minutes. During the brief period that preceded the Miranda warnings, defendant was not handcuffed or restrained in any manner and the investigators did not do anything to convey that defendant was not free to leave … . Moreover, the two questions that preceded the Miranda warnings – the first asked defendant for his address and the second inquired into defendant’s Internet service – were investigatory, as opposed to accusatory. Considering the totality of the circumstances, and in light of County Court’s determinations that [the interrogating officer] was “frank, candid, and trustworthy and [that] his testimony had the general force and flavor of credibility,” we find that the People met their burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s pre-Miranda statements were not the product of a custodial interrogation… . People v Henry, 106048, 3rd Dept 2-20-14

 

You might also like
Out-Of-Possession Landlord Liability Criteria Explained
The Absence of Proof Defendants Disclosed Slanderous Statements Included in Letters to Plaintiff Precluded a “Name-Clearing” Hearing/The Jury Should Not Have Been Allowed to Consider “Ostracism and Rejection” Damages Absent Proof Defendants Were Responsible for Republication of the Slanderous Remarks by Third Persons
THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BOARD DID NOT PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR DISQUALIFYING CLAIMANT FROM FUTURE WAGE REPLACEMENT BENEFITS, MATTER REMITTED SO THAT ASPECT OF THE PENALTY CAN BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL (THIRD DEPT).
A NEW HEARING ON FATHER’S PETITION TO RELOCATE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE COURT MAY HAVE PLACED TOO MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE CHILD’S ENROLLMENT IN A PARTICULAR SCHOOL AS THE BASIS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION (THIRD DEPT). ​
DANCE INSTRUCTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FOUNDATION CHARTERED BY THE NYS BOARD OF REGENTS TO SET UP ARTISTIC PROGRAMS IN SCHOOLS (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING THE EMPLOYER’S TRUCK WITH THE EMPLOYER’S PERMISSION AND WHETHER THE EMPLOYEE WAS ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WHEN THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OCCURRED (THIRD DEPT).
WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMPANY’S CONTRACT WITH THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT VOID; THE CONTRACT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BID SPECIFICATIONS WERE IMPROPERLY DEVELOPED WITH THE COMPANY OR DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE COMPANY RECEIVED THE CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).
NEGLIGENCE AND TRESPASS ACTIONS AGAINST THE TOWN BASED UPON A LANDSLIDE WHICH CAUSED FLOODING OF PLAINTIFF’S LAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD 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

Presentation of Evidence of an Uncharged Offense Without Seeking a Ruling on... Attorney Was an “Employee,” Not an Independent Contractor, for Puposes...