green
Positive treatment
16.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1971 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1971
1998
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Post
The court properly concluded that defendant was not in custody inasmuch as the record of the suppression hearing established that "a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that [they were] in custody during that time, given the circumstances of the initial [interview]" ( People v Walker , 87 AD3d 1352, 1352 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 862 [2011]; see generally People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Washington
(2×)
"The standard for assessing a suspect's custodial status is whether a reasonable person innocent of any [*14]wrongdoing would have believed that he or she was not free to leave" ( id. at 129; see People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Dozier
As the court properly determined, at the time in question, "a reasonable person in defendant's position, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that [they were] in custody, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" ( People v Gladney , 235 AD3d 1255 , 1256 [4th Dept 2025] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Thomas , 166 AD3d 1499 , 1500 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1178 [2019]; see generally People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Giacopelli
"The standard for assessing a suspect's custodial status is whether a reasonable person innocent of any wrongdoing would have believed that he or she was not free to leave" ( id. at 129 ; see People v. Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Giacopelli
"The standard for assessing a suspect's custodial status is whether a reasonable person innocent of any wrongdoing would have believed that he or she was not free to leave" ( id. at 129 ; see People v. Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Waggoner
"When a seizure of a person remains at the stop and frisk inquiry level and does not constitute a restraint on [their] freedom of movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest, Miranda warnings need not be given prior to questioning" ( People v Shelton , 111 AD3d 1334 , 1336 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 23 NY3d 1025 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Bennett , 70 NY2d 891, 893-894 [1987]). "[I]n reviewing the hearing court's finding that there was no custodial interrogation prior to the warnings being administered, and that admissions given were voluntary, great def…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Wright
In sum, "the police action fell short of the level of intrusion upon defendant's liberty and privacy that constitutes an arrest" ( Hicks , 68 NY2d at 240 ; see People v Howard , 129 AD3d 1654, 1655-1656 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 999 [2016]; see generally People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Dubois
A reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have considered himself or herself in custody under those circumstances ( see People v Box , 181 AD3d 1238, 1239 [4th Dept 2020], lv denied 35 NY3d 1025 [2020], cert denied — US &mdash, 141 S [*2]Ct 1099 [2021]; see generally People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], rearg denied 26 NY2d 845 , 883 [1970], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hill
Even were we to assume that the Investigator was acting as an agent of the police ( cf. generally People v Rodriguez , 135 AD3d 1181, 1184-1185 [3d Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 936 [2016]), it is well settled that "the safeguards required by Miranda are not triggered unless a suspect is subject to custodial interrogation . . . [and t]he standard for assessing a suspect's custodial status is whether a reasonable person innocent of any wrongdoing would have believed that he or she was not free to leave" ( People v Paulman , 5 NY3d 122, 129 [2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Davis
A court's determination that a defendant was not in custody is accorded great weight and will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous" ( People v Fragassi , 178 AD3d 1153 , 1156 [2019] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted], lv denied 34 NY3d 1128 [2020]; see People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v McCabe , 182 AD3d 772, 774 [2020]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Johnson
We reject that contention inasmuch as "the evidence at the Huntley hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody when he made the statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required" ( People v Bell-Scott , 162 AD3d 1558 , 1559 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1169 [2019]; see People v Clark , 136 AD3d 1367, 1368 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1130 [2016]; see generally People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Mineccia
We conclude that defendant was not in police custody at the time he made those statements, and thus Miranda warnings were not required ( see People v Towsley , 53 AD3d 1083, 1084 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 795 [*2][2008]; see also People v Brown , 111 AD3d 1385 , 1385-1386 [4th Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1155 [2014]; see generally People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Robinson
Defendant was not in custody when she made her initial statement inasmuch as, under the circumstances here, "a reasonable person innocent of any crime would not have believed that he or she was in custody at that time" ( People v Ellis , 73 AD3d 1433, 1434 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [2010]; see generally People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Hernandez
Under those circumstances, we agree with defendant that a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have felt free to leave, and that he was thus in custody during the questioning, which the People correctly concede constituted interrogation ( cf. People v Thomas , 166 AD3d 1499 , 1500 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1178 [2019]; People v Kelley , 91 AD3d 1318, 1318-1319 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 963 [2012]; see generally People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Boyle , 239 AD2d 512, 512-513 [2d Dept 1997]; People v Perkins , 189 AD…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Morris
The test is "not what the defendant thought, but rather what a reasonable [person], innocent of any crime, would have thought had he [or she] been in the defendant's position" ( People v Figueroa , 156 AD3d 1348, 1348 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 31 NY3d 1013 [2018] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Moore
"The standard for assessing a suspect's custodial status is whether a reasonable person innocent of any wrongdoing would have believed that he or she was not free to leave" ( id. at 129 [citations omitted]; see People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Planty , 155 AD3d 1130, 1133 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1118 [2018]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Graham
We agree with the court that defendant was not in custody when he gave statements to the police and thus Miranda warnings were not required (see People v McGuay, 120 AD3d 1566 , 1567 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1167 [2015]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
SPOOR, RONALD T., PEOPLE v
Under those circumstances, we conclude that “a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have thought he or she was in custody if placed in defendant’s position” (People v Smielecki, 77 AD3d 1420, 1421 , lv denied 15 NY3d 956 ; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ). -2- 383 KA 15-00636 In any event, defendant validly waived his Miranda rights prior to making his admission to the investigator.
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Spoor
Under those circumstances, we conclude that “a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have thought he or she was in custody if placed in defendant’s position” (People v Smielecki, 77 AD3d 1420, 1421 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 956 [2010]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Spoor
Under those circumstances, we conclude that “a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have thought he or she was in custody if placed in defendant’s position” (People v Smielecki, 77 AD3d 1420, 1421 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 956 [2010]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Simmons
A reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have thought he or she was in custody either at the scene or while conversing with the investigators in the family waiting room at the hospital (see People v Figueroa-Norse, 120 AD3d 913 , 913-914 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1071 [2015]; People v Lopez, 39 AD3d 1231, 1232 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 847 [2007]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Simmons
A reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have thought he or she was in custody either at the scene or while conversing with the investigators in the family waiting room at the hospital (see People v Figueroa-Norse, 120 AD3d 913 , 913-914 [2014], lv denied 25 NY3d 1071 [2015]; People v Lopez, 39 AD3d 1231, 1232 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 847 [2007]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
SIMMONS, MARIE R., PEOPLE v
A reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have thought he or she was in custody either at the scene or while conversing with the investigators in the family waiting room at the hospital (see People v Figueroa-Norse, 120 AD3d 913, 913-914 , lv denied 25 NY3d 1071 ; People v Lopez, 39 AD3d 1231, 1232 , lv denied 9 NY3d 847 ; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Clark
We thus conclude that “a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have thought he or she was in custody if placed in defendant’s position” (id.; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Clark
We thus conclude that “a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have thought he or she was in custody if placed in defendant’s position” (id.; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
CLARK, SYROYA N., PEOPLE v
We thus conclude that “a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have thought he or she was in custody if placed in defendant’s position” (id.; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ). -2- 44 KA 14-00668 We reject defendant’s contention that her statements should have been suppressed because the police officers’ testimony did not definitively establish the circumstances under which she was read her Miranda warnings.
discussed
Cited "see"
WALKER, KENNEDY D., PEOPLE v
It is undisputed that defendant was in custody when he was handcuffed by the first officer and then escorted by the second officer to be placed in the police car (see People v Evans, 294 AD2d 918, 919 , lv dismissed 98 NY2d 768 ; People v Sanchez, 280 AD2d 891, 891 , lv denied 96 NY2d 806 ; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ), and that defendant was subjected to pre-Miranda interrogation because his initial admission was made in response to a question by the second officer regarding ownership of the gun that was “ ‘reasonably likely to elicit an incrimi…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Walker
It is undisputed that defendant was in custody when he was handcuffed by the first officer and then escorted by the second officer to be placed in the police car (see People v Evans, 294 AD2d 918, 919 [2002], lv dismissed 98 NY2d 768 [2002]; People v Sanchez, 280 AD2d 891, 891 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 806 [2001]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1980]), and that defendant was subjected to pr e-Miranda interrogation because his initial admission was made in response to a question by the second officer regarding ownership of the gun that was “ ‘r…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Walker
It is undisputed that defendant was in custody when he was handcuffed by the first officer and then escorted by the second officer to be placed in the police car (see People v Evans, 294 AD2d 918, 919 [2002], lv dismissed 98 NY2d 768 [2002]; People v Sanchez, 280 AD2d 891, 891 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 806 [2001]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1980]), and that defendant was subjected to pr e-Miranda interrogation because his initial admission was made in response to a question by the second officer regarding ownership of the gun that was “ ‘r…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Howard
We conclude that “the police action fell short of the level of intrusion upon defendant’s liberty and privacy that constitutes an arrest” (People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234, 240 [1986]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
HOWARD, JR., JOHN C., PEOPLE v
We conclude that “the police action fell short of the level of intrusion upon defendant’s liberty and privacy that constitutes an arrest” (People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234, 240 ; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Henry
Whether an individual was in custody is a mixed question of law and fact (see People v Paulman, 5 NY3d at 129), which is dependent on the circumstances existing when the challenged statements were made, considering such factors as “the location, length and atmosphere of the questioning, whether police significantly restricted defendant’s freedom of action, the degree of defendant’s cooperation, and whether the questioning was accusatory or investigatory” (People v Pagan, 97 AD3d 963, 966 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 934 [2012]; see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 U…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Henry
Whether an individual was in custody is a mixed question of law and fact (see People v Paulman, 5 NY3d at 129), which is dependent on the circumstances existing when the challenged statements were made, considering such factors as “the location, length and atmosphere of the questioning, whether police significantly restricted defendant’s freedom of action, the degree of defendant’s cooperation, and whether the questioning was accusatory or investigatory” (People v Pagan, 97 AD3d 963, 966 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 934 [2012]; see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 U…
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Jones
The court properly determined that “a reasonable person in defendant’s position, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he or she was in custody, and thus Miranda warnings were not required” (People v Lunderman, 19 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 830 [2005]; see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
JONES, GREGORY A., PEOPLE v
The court properly determined that “a reasonable person in defendant’s position, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he or she was in custody, and thus Miranda warnings were not required” (People v Lunderman, 19 AD3d 1067, 1068 , lv denied 5 NY3d 830 ; see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Jones
The court properly determined that “a reasonable person in defendant’s position, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he or she was in custody, and thus Miranda warnings were not required” (People v Lunderman, 19 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 830 [2005]; see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Coffey
Significantly, however, “threshold crime scene inquiries designed to clarify the situation and questions that are purely investigatory in nature do not need to be preceded by Miranda warnings” (People v Mayerhofer, 283 AD2d 672, 674 [2001] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Coffey
Significantly, however, “threshold crime scene inquiries designed to clarify the situation and questions that are purely investigatory in nature do not need to be preceded by Miranda warnings” (People v Mayerhofer, 283 AD2d 672, 674 [2001] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Williams
The suppression court’s resolution of the issue whether defendant was in custody “must be accorded great weight” (Kelley, 91 AD3d at 1318 ) and, contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that a reasonable 15-year-old, innocent of any crime, would not have felt that his or her freedom was restricted (see Matter of Rennette B., 281 AD2d 78, 85-86 [2001]; cf. Matter of Ricardo S., 297 AD2d 255, 256 [2002]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Williams
The suppression court’s resolution of the issue whether defendant was in custody “must be accorded great weight” (Kelley, 91 AD3d at 1318 ) and, contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that a reasonable 15-year-old, innocent of any crime, would not have felt that his or her freedom was restricted (see Matter of Rennette B., 281 AD2d 78, 85-86 [2001]; cf. Matter of Ricardo S., 297 AD2d 255, 256 [2002]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Doll
A reasonable person under those circumstances would not have felt free to leave, and thus the court properly concluded that defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes (see People v Mejia, 64 AD3d 1144, 1145-1146 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 861 [2009]; People v Rhodes, 49 AD3d 668, 668-669 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 938 [2008]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
DOLL, SCOTT F., PEOPLE v
A reasonable person under those circumstances would not have felt free to leave, and thus the court properly concluded that defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes (see People v Mejia, 64 AD3d 1144, 1145-1146 , lv denied 13 NY3d 861 ; People v Rhodes, 49 AD3d 668, 668-669 , lv denied 10 NY3d 938 ; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Doll
A reasonable person under those circumstances would not have felt free to leave, and thus the court properly concluded that defendant was in custody for Miranda purposes (see People v Mejia, 64 AD3d 1144, 1145-1146 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 861 [2009]; People v Rhodes, 49 AD3d 668, 668-669 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 938 [2008]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Tavares-Nunez
The determination of whether a defendant is in custody at the time of an interrogation does not turn upon the subjective intent of the police officer (see United States v Mendenhall, 446 US 544 , 555 n 6 [1980]; People v Joy, 114 AD2d 517, 520 [1985]), but, rather, concerns “what a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought had he or she been in the defendant’s position” (People v Hardy, 77 AD3d 133, 141 [2010]; see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Daniels
“As the court properly determined, a reasonable person in defendant’s position, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he or she was in custody, and thus Miranda warnings were not required” (People v Lunderman, 19 AD3d 1067, 1068 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 830 [2005]; see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Harris
We further conclude that defendant was not in custody at the time he made the statements to the police (see People v Sanderson, 68 AD3d 1716 [2009]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Mejia
We agree with defendant that a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have believed under those circumstances that he or she was in custody (see People v Rhodes, 49 AD3d 668, 669 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 938 [2008]; People v Ramos, 27 AD3d 1073, 1074-1075 [2006], lv dismissed 6 NY3d 897 [2006]; People v Evans, 294 AD2d 918, 919 [2002], lv dismissed 98 NY2d 768 [2002]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Debo
Under the circumstances, we conclude that a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he or she was in police custody but, rather, would have believed that he or she was being interviewed as a witness to a crime (see People v Sherry, 41 AD3d 1235, 1236 [2007]; see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Murphy
“A reasonable person in defendant’s position, innocent of any crime, would not have believed that he or she was in custody when the statements were made” (People v Lopez, 39 AD3d 1231, 1232 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 847 [2007]; see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]; People v Lunderman, 19 AD3d 1067, 1068-1069 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 830 [2005]).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Strong
In determining whether a person was in custody, a court must decide whether, considering the totality of the circumstances, “a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, . . . would believe that he or she was free to leave the presence of the police” (People v Vaughn, 275 AD2d 484 , 487 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 788 [2001]; see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Patterson
v.
District Court of Oklahoma
v.
District Court of Oklahoma
No. 5141.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 12, 1970.
Douglas, Granted, Should.
Published
Sup. Ct. Okla. Certiorari denied.
Mr. Justice Douglas is of the opinion that certiorari should be granted.