The Fourth Department, reversing County Court’s suppression of a handgun, over a two-justice dissent, determined the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant without a warrant based upon video evidence showing the defendant entering the victim’s apartment with the victim, showing the defendant leaving the apartment and demonstrating no one else entered the apartment during the relevant period of time (when the victim was shot).. County Court’s ruling that the arrest in the common hallway of an apartment building was a Payton violation was rejected because the defendant had no expectation of privacy there:

The police “may arrest a person without a warrant when [they] ha[ve] probable cause to believe that such person has committed a crime” … . “Probable cause ‘does not require proof sufficient to warrant a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt but merely information sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been . . . committed’ by the person arrested” … . “When determining whether the police had probable cause to arrest, the inquiry is not as to [the person’s] guilt but as to the sufficiency for arrest purposes of the grounds for the arresting officer’s belief that [the person] was guilty” … . “[T]he basis for such a belief must not only be reasonable, but it must appear to be at least more probable than not that a crime has taken place and that the one arrested is its perpetrator” … . ” ‘[T]he legal conclusion [as to whether probable cause existed] is to be made after considering all of the facts and circumstances together’ ” … . “A synoptic evaluation is essential because ‘[v]iewed singly, these may not be persuasive, yet when viewed together the puzzle may fit and probable cause found’ ” … .

… [O]n January 24, 2024, the tenant who actually rented the victim’s apartment in Jamestown found the victim deceased in the apartment and then reported the discovery to a neighbor, who then accompanied the tenant back to the apartment and called 911 to report the discovery of the victim’s body. The police thereafter discovered that the victim had sustained a fatal gunshot wound to the back of the head. As of that day and into the next, the murder weapon had not been located. During their investigation into the homicide, the police obtained security footage that depicted the hallway outside of the victim’s apartment. The security footage showed the victim and another male entering the victim’s apartment on January 22, 2024, but only the yet-to-be-identified male left the victim’s apartment later that same day. The investigative section commander with the investigating police department testified that, after obtaining a still photograph from the security footage and conducting further investigation, the police determined that defendant was the other male shown entering the apartment with the victim on January 22, 2024. Indeed, another officer recognized the other male—defendant—as the same person with whom he had a brief street encounter on January 22, 2024 in an alleyway on the backside of the victim’s apartment complex, i.e., defendant’s presence at the victim’s apartment complex was independently confirmed by a law enforcement source. Notably, during the street encounter that day, defendant partially misrepresented his name by giving his middle name as his surname. The police thus developed knowledge that defendant was the other male depicted leaving the victim’s apartment that same day. Based upon the police department’s review of the relevant duration of the security footage, however, no one else, including the victim, ever exited or entered the apartment from January 22, 2024 until January 24, 2024, i.e., the day that the victim’s body was discovered and the discovery was reported to the police. People v Kadenhead, 2026 NY Slip Op 04680, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point: Here the Fourth Department determined the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant in the hallway of his apartment building, without a warrant, three days after the shooting.​

he Fourth Department, affirming the conviction, determined there was no Miranda violation because the police asked only pedigree questions. The two dissenters disagreed:

… [T]he police officer, accompanied by two other members of the police department, responded to a residence after receiving a complaint that there were unwanted guests there. Upon their arrival, the complainant reported to the police that there were two unwanted guests in the residence: a female guest identified by name and a male guest supposedly named “Rodney.” The police identified the female guest by name and she agreed to leave without argument.

The police located the male guest—later identified as defendant—in the closet of a back bedroom underneath some clothes and other items. The police asked defendant to identify himself by name and date of birth. Defendant provided the police with the false name “Rodney Miller” and a purported date of birth. The police gave defendant multiple warnings that it was illegal to lie to them about his name, but defendant continued to provide the false name. The officer testified that defendant was not free to leave during the interaction until the police identified him. The officer explained, among other things, that the police did not provide defendant with Miranda warnings prior to asking for his name and date of birth because they were merely attempting to obtain defendant’s pedigree information as a routine matter for any such encounter. The officer further testified that the police then informed defendant that he was going to be detained and, upon being detained, defendant provided his real name. Thereafter, the police ultimately determined that there was an order of protection in place against defendant and in favor of the female guest. The police then arrested defendant for violating the order of protection and for providing false pedigree information. * * *

… [W]e conclude that the court properly determined that the pedigree exception applied and thus properly denied that part of defendant’s omnibus motion seeking to suppress his statements to the police. The officer testified at the suppression hearing that the purpose of asking pedigree questions of both the female guest and defendant was “[t]o identify who they were and advise them they were no longer welcome there,” and that requesting general information such as names and dates of birth was routine for any such encounter. The officer’s testimony thus established the administrative purpose for seeking pedigree information during an encounter of that nature: the police must know with whom they are speaking in a residence … . The People “thereby established the threshold basis for the pedigree exception to apply, i.e., the questions were reasonably related to the police’s administrative concerns” … . * * *

As the Court of Appeals has cautioned, “[a]lthough there may be some circumstances where asking a suspect for core identifying information such as name, date of birth, and address will not qualify for the pedigree exception to Miranda, those circumstances will be rare” (id. at 416). People v Milton, 2026 NY Slip Op 04584, Fourth Dept 7-24-26

Practice Point; The police may ask for a person’s name and date of birth without providing Miranda warnings, even when the police are aware the person has provided a false name.