You are here: / CUSTODY

Tag Archive for: CUSTODY

,

SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET, WHICH WAS NOT ON HIS PERSON, AFTER DEFENDANT WAS HANDCUFFED AND IN CUSTODY VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

The Fourth Department determined the search of the pockets of defendant’s jacket (which was not on his person) after defendant was handcuffed and in custody was illegal under the State Constitution and the drugs found in the pockets should have been suppressed. The court further found that the illegally-seized drugs presented as evidence at trial may have influenced the jury to find an “intent to sell” with respect to the remaining drug count. A new trial was ordered on the remaining count:

After securing the jacket, the officers replaced the handcuffs on defendant and escorted him to the rear seat of their patrol car. One of the officers placed the jacket on the floor of the front seat of the patrol car, where it remained while defendant was transported to the Public Safety Building. Defendant was taken to an interview room, and the jacket was searched in another room at the Public Safety Building. A variety of drugs was discovered in the jacket pockets. * * *

“Under the State Constitution, to justify a warrantless search incident to an arrest, the People must satisfy two separate requirements. The first imposes spatial and temporal limitations to ensure that the search is not significantly divorced in time or place from the arrest . . . The second, and equally important, predicate requires the People to demonstrate the presence of exigent circumstances” … . We conclude that, here, neither requirement is satisfied. At the time the jacket was searched, defendant was handcuffed in an interview room at the Public Safety Building. “[T]he jacket had been reduced to the exclusive control of the police[,] and there was no reasonable possibility that defendant could have reached it” … . Nor was there any exigency that would justify the warrantless search of the jacket in these circumstances … . People v Wilcox, 2015 NY Slip Op 09457, 4th Dept 12-23-15

CRIMINAL LAW (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET VIOLATED STATE CONSTITUTION)/EVIDENCE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET VIOLATED THE STATE CONSTITUTION)/SEARCH AND SEIZURE (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET VIOLATED STATE CONSTITUTION)/SUPPRESSION (SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S JACKET VIOLATED STATE CONSTITUTION)

,

Pedigree Question “Where Do You Reside,” Under the Circumstances, Was Designed to Elicit an Incriminating Response, the Answer, Therefore, Should Have Been Suppressed; New Trial on Possessory Counts Ordered

The Fourth Department ordered a new trial on the drug possession and drug paraphernalia counts. Defendant was convicted based upon a “constructive possession” theory (i.e., possession of contraband based upon defendant’s dominion and control over the premises where the contraband is found). As police officers were conducting a search, and as defendant was handcuffed and lying on the floor, an officer asked defendant where he resided. Defendant answered “here.” The People relied heavily on defendant’s answer to prove constructive possession of contraband found on the premises. Under these circumstances, the pedigree question (where do you reside) was designed to elicit an incriminating response and, because the statement was “unwarned,” the answer should have been suppressed:

Generally, a defendant’s answer concerning his address, when “elicited through routine administrative questioning that [is] not designed to elicit an incriminating response” … , will be considered pedigree information not subject to CPL 710.30 notice requirements even if the statement later proves to be inculpatory … . That is “[b]ecause responses to routine booking questions—pedigree questions . . . —are not suppressible even when obtained in violation of Miranda [and, therefore, a] defendant lacks a constitutional basis upon which to challenge the voluntariness of his [or her] statement” … . “[W]here there is no question of voluntariness, the People are not required to serve defendant with notice” … .

As the Court of Appeals recognized, however, “the People may not rely on the pedigree exception if the questions, though facially appropriate, are likely to elicit incriminating admissions because of the circumstances of the particular case” (id.). Although the question concerning defendant’s address appears to have been a facially appropriate question, we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case and, more specifically, under the circumstances in which the question was asked, the question was likely to elicit an incriminating admission and had a “necessary connection to an essential element of [the possessory] crimes charged” under Penal Law §§ 220.16 and 220.50 (2) … . We agree with defendant that the error in admitting that statement cannot be considered harmless insofar as it relates to the possessory counts of the indictment inasmuch as the People relied heavily on that statement to establish defendant’s constructive possession of the drugs and drug paraphernalia … . People v Slade, 2015 NY Slip Op 08252, 4th Dept 11-13-15

 

, , ,

Failure to Suppress Statement Was Not Harmless Error Because the Statement Undermined the Justification Defense—Proof Burdens for “Harmless Error” and the Justification Defense Explained

The Court of Appeals determined the Appellate Division properly found that the “unwarned” statement made by 11-year-old Delroy should have been suppressed. The statement was made in Delroy’s apartment when a police officer asked him “what happened?”. Under the circumstances, “a reasonable 11 year old would not have felt free to leave” at the time the question was asked.  Therefore the question amounted to “custodial interrogation” in the absence of the Miranda warnings. The Court of Appeals, disagreeing with the Appellate Division, ruled the error was not harmless because the statement undermined Delroy’s defense of justification. There was no question Delroy stabbed the 12-year-old complainant.  But questions were raised by the trial testimony whether the stabbing was in self-defense. With respect to proof burdens for “harmless error” and the justification defense, the Court of Appeals explained:

A trial court’s error involving a constitutionally protected right is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt only if “there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to defendant’s conviction” … . “The People must show that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt [and] [i]n deciding whether the People have met this burden, we consider both the overall strength of the case against defendant and the importance to that case of the improperly admitted evidence” … .

The record shows that while there was no doubt that Delroy had stabbed the complainant, there was evidence supporting Delroy’s justification defense. “The defense of justification . . . permits one to use deadly physical force on another when one reasonably believes that deadly physical force is being used or imminently will be used by such other person” … . The People bear the burden of disproving the defense of justification beyond a reasonable doubt … . * * *

…[T]he People have not demonstrated that there is no reasonable possibility that the wrongly admitted evidence might have contributed to the guilty finding. Matter of Delroy S., 2015 NY Slip Op 04676, CtApp 6-4-15

 

Defendant’s Statement Was Made In Response to the Functional Equivalent of a Question Designed to Elicit an Incriminatory Response and Should Have Been Suppressed

The Third Department determined a statement made by the defendant after he had been arrested and was being transported to the police station was not “spontaneous” (as County Court found) and should have been suppressed. At the arrest scene one of defendant’s “associates” indicated defendant might have drugs in his anal cavity.  In the police car, an officer said to the defendant that he hoped defendant did not have any more drugs on him and the defendant said he probably did.  During a subsequent search drugs were found in defendant’s anal cavity. Although defendant’s statement indicating he probably had more drugs on him should have been suppressed because it was made in response to a police statement designed to elicit an incriminating response, the drugs themselves were not subject to suppression.  The Third Department determined the search which turned up the drugs was not triggered by the statement:

The admissibility of a statement made by a defendant in custody depends on whether it was “the product of ‘express questioning or its functional equivalent'” … . The operative question is whether, in context, “the officer should have known that his statement was ‘reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from the suspect'” … . In our view, County Court erred in concluding that the inculpatory statement was admissible because it was simply a spontaneous response to a declaration by [the officer]. For a statement to be spontaneous, it must be self-generated without “inducement, provocation, encouragement or acquiescense, no matter how subtly employed” … . Coming on the heels of [the officer’s] explanation that defendant would be searched as part of the booking process, and having been informed by the passenger that defendant may have hidden additional drugs on his person, we find [the officer’s] statement to be the functional equivalent of a question intended to elicit an incriminating response … . Since defendant was in custody and had not been given Miranda warnings, the statement should have been suppressed as involuntary. People v George, 2015 NY Slip Op 03574, 3rd Dept 4-30-15

 

, ,

Under the Facts, the Merger Doctrine Precluded Convictions on Both Kidnapping and Burglary Counts/Statements and Lineup Identification Made after Defendant Invoked His Right to Counsel Should Have Been Suppressed

The Second Department reversed defendant’s convictions, dismissed the counts which violated the merger doctrine, and ordered a new trial on the remaining counts.  The merger doctrine precluded the kidnapping counts because the restraint of the complainants was inseparable from the burglary count of which defendant was convicted. Supreme Court should have suppressed statements made after defendant invoked his right to counsel and should not have allowed identification evidence stemming from a lineup about which defendant’s attorney was not informed. On remand, the court must conduct an “independent source” hearing to determine if the witness can identify the defendant without reliance on the tainted lineup. The Second Department also noted that prior uncharged-crime evidence was improperly admitted to prove “identity:”

The defendant correctly contends that his conviction of four counts of kidnapping in the second degree must be vacated by virtue of the merger doctrine. Under the circumstances of this case, the merger doctrine precludes the convictions of kidnapping in the second degree because the restraint of the complainants was essentially incidental to and inseparable from the count of burglary of which the defendant was convicted … . …

…[T]he hearing court erred in denying those branches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress a statement that he made to law enforcement officials and lineup identification testimony. “A defendant’s unequivocal invocation of counsel while in custody results in the attachment of the right to counsel, indelibly so, meaning that, as a matter of state constitutional law, a defendant cannot subsequently waive the right to counsel unless the defendant is in the presence of an attorney representing that defendant” … . The defendant, who was in custody, invoked his right to counsel prior to waiving his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444) and giving a statement to law enforcement officials. Since the defendant gave a statement to those officials in the absence of counsel, and after the right to counsel had indelibly attached, the Supreme Court should have suppressed the statement.

Similarly, the defendant’s right to counsel was also violated when police officers conducted a lineup without apprising the defendant’s attorney and affording the attorney a reasonable opportunity to participate … . Since there was no independent source hearing conducted in connection with an in-court identification of the defendant by one of the complainants, the Supreme Court must conduct a hearing, unless waived by the defendant, to determine whether there was an independent source for the in-court identification or, conversely, whether that identification was tainted by the improperly conducted lineup, and thereby rendered inadmissible … . People v Garnes, 2015 NY Slip Op 03381, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

,

Defendant Was Subjected to Custodial Interrogation Before Waiving His Right to Remain Silent—Oral Pre-Miranda and Written Post-Miranda Statements Should Have Been Suppressed—Error Deemed Harmless

The Second Department determined defendant’s pre-Miranda statements, as well as his post-Miranda written statement, should have been suppressed because the defendant was in custody and interrogated before he waived his right to remain silent.  Defendant had been stopped by two police cars, one of which cut off defendant’s lane of travel. Defendant then consented to going to the police station where he was placed in a locked room and subjected to accusatory questioning.  (The court ultimately determined the error was harmless, however):

Contrary to the suppression court’s determination, the statements made by the defendant at the police station should have been suppressed as the product of custodial interrogation conducted without the benefit of Miranda warnings. “Miranda warnings need not be given until both the elements of police custody’ and interrogation’ are present” … . The issue of whether a suspect is in custody is generally a question of fact … . In deciding whether a defendant was in custody before receiving Miranda warnings, “the subjective beliefs of the defendant are not to be the determinative factor” … . Nor does the determination turn on the subjective intent of the police officer … . Rather, the test is “what a reasonable man [or woman], innocent of any crime, would have thought had he [or she] been in the defendant’s position” … . “[T]he term interrogation’ under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect” … .

Here, a reasonable, innocent person would not have believed that he or she was free to leave the police station at the time the defendant made his oral statements to the police … . Moreover, the questions by the police were accusatory in nature, rather than merely investigatory, and were designed to elicit an incriminating response … . Accordingly, the oral statements made by the defendant at the police station were the product of custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings and should have been suppressed. Furthermore, the written statement by the defendant, although created after Miranda warnings were issued, also should have been suppressed, as there was no attenuation between the statements that were obtained unlawfully and the written statement … . People v Reardon, 2015 NY Slip Op 00394, 2nd Dept 1-14-15

 

,

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

 

,

Invocation of Right to Counsel When Not in Custody Can Be Withdrawn Without Attorney Present

The Third Department determined defendant’s invocation of his right to counsel when he was not in custody (on September 4, 2004) could be withdrawn without an attorney present and did not, therefore, require the suppression of subsequent statements made three weeks later:

The right to counsel indelibly attaches in two limited situations – where formal judicial proceedings against a defendant have commenced and where an uncharged defendant, who is in custody, has retained or requested an attorney … .  However, “[a] suspect who is not in custody when he or she invokes the right to counsel can withdraw the request and be questioned by the police” … .  As defendant was not in custody at the time he invoked his right to counsel on September 4, 2009, he was free to withdraw that request or waive such right and speak with the police without having an attorney present – particularly in view of the approximately three weeks that elapsed between his initial request for an attorney and his subsequent statements to law enforcement … . People v Cade, 103443, 3rd Dept 10-24-13

 

,

Emergency Doctrine Applied—Statements Made to Police and Overheard by Police Not Suppressible

In a full-fledged opinion by Judge Graffeo, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of motions to suppress certain statements made by the defendant to the police and to a friend in the presence of the police under the emergency doctrine. [The concurring judge felt the emergency was over when defendant spoke to his friend and his prior request for counsel rendered those statements suppressible. The majority held that the conversation with the friend was not police interrogation because there was no police involvement and the conversation was not a ploy by the police to elicit information from the defendant.] When the police encountered the defendant his clothes had wet blood on them and blood was found in defendant’s vehicle. The emergency doctrine applied because the police were justified in questioning the defendant to determine if someone was injured and needed help:

As a general rule, a person who is in custody cannot be questioned without first receiving Miranda warnings or after the right to counsel attaches … .  There are exceptions to these principles, one of which is referred to as the “emergency doctrine” … . It recognizes that the Constitution “is not a barrier to a police officer seeking to help someone in immediate danger” …, thereby excusing or justifying otherwise impermissible police conduct that is an objectively reasonable response to an apparently exigent situation … .  We have explained that the exception is comprised of three elements: (1) the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief must be grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search must not be primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched … .  People v Doll, 141, CtApp 10-17-13

 

, ,

County Court’s Suppression of Statements and Fruits of Search Reversed

The Third Department reversed County Court’s suppression of defendant’s statements and County Court’s finding that defendant had not voluntarily consented to the search of his car (both based on the absence of Miranda warnings).   The Third Department determined a reasonable person innocent of a crime would still have felt he was free to leave (i.e., that he was not in custody) after his failure of field sobriety tests and a negative alcosensor test.  The Third Department further noted that the failure to provide Miranda warnings would not necessarily render a consent to search involuntary:

The court ….overlooked the settled proposition that “[a] temporary roadside detention pursuant to a routine traffic stop is not custodial within the meaning of Miranda” … .The facts here reveal a reasonable initial interrogation attendant to a roadside detention that was merely investigatory…. The Troopers’ inquiries, the mixed results of the field sobriety tests and a negative alcosensor test would not have caused a reasonable person innocent of any wrongdoing to believe that he or she was in custody….   In our view, the Troopers’ observations of defendant’s condition justified the further  detention  for the  limited  purpose  of  investigating whether  he  was  operating his motor  vehicle in an  impaired condition… .  People v Brown, 105134, 3rd Dept 6-27-13

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy