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
With Regard to the Suit Against the Perpetrator, Perpetrator’s Criminal Conviction Barred Relitigation in the Wrongful Death Case Stemming from a Stabbing Outside Defendant Bar/With Regard to the Suit Against Defendant Bar, Questions of Fact Raised About the Foreseeability of the Attack, the Proximate Cause of the Injury, and the Adequacy of Defendant Bar’s Security Measures
PLAINTIFF BANK’S PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING; RES JUDICATA DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE PRIOR ACTION WAS NOT DISMISSED ON THE MERITS; COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE INSTANT ACTION BECAUSE THE STANDING ISSUE IS NOT THE SAME (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE ORDER FINDING SHE HAD NEGLECTED THE CHILDREN SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; MOTHER DEMONSTRATED SUCCESSFUL EFFORTS TO ADDRESS HER MENTAL HEALTH AND PARENTING SKILLS (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT PRESENT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF DEFAULT PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE LOFT BOARD PROPERLY REJECTED TENANTS’ REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATIONS FOR COVERAGE UNDER THE LOFT LAW FOLLOWING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE LANDLORD; HERE THE LANDLORD HELD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHICH INCLUDED THE TENANTS’ RESIDENCES IN THE ABSENCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY; THE LANDLORD HAD SETTLED WITH THE TENANTS, AGREEING TO OBTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND CONVERT THE PROPERTY TO RENT STABILIZED RESIDENCES (SECOND DEPT).
SUPPLEMENTAL BILL OF PARTICULARS PROPERLY SERVED WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT; UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUPPLEMENTAL BILL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK BASED UPON PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR AT A DEPOSITION. 
THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE FINDING MOTHER NEGLECTED HER TWO-MONTH OLD CHILD BY EXPOSING THE CHILD TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE; THAT THE CHILD MAY HAVE HEARD LOUD ARGUING BEFORE GRANDMOTHER TOOK THE CHILD TO HER APARTMENT WAS NOT ENOUGH (SECOND DEPT).
Liability Criteria Re: Tenant for Slip and Fall on Abutting Public Sidewalk Explained

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...