People v. Jacquin, 522 N.E.2d 1026 (N.Y. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Jacquin, 522 N.E.2d 1026 (N.Y. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
40 citation events (18 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Johnson (nyjustct, 2024-07-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Johnson
nyjustct · 2024 · confidence medium
See People v Hager , 69 NY2d 141, 142 (1987); People v Jacquin , 71 NY2d 825, 826 (1988); People v Berg , 92 NY2d 701, 705 (1999); People v Dougal , 266 AD2d 574, 576 (3d Dept 1999), lv denied 94 NY2d 879 (2000).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Johnson
nyjustct · 2024 · confidence medium
See People v Hager , 69 NY2d 141, 142 (1987); People v Jacquin , 71 NY2d 825, 826 (1988); People v Berg , 92 NY2d 701, 705 (1999); People v Dougal , 266 AD2d 574, 576 (3d Dept 1999), lv denied 94 NY2d 879 (2000).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Leonard (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Although not preserved for our review (see People v Jacquin, 71 NY2d 825, 826-827 [1988]; People v Durrin, 32 AD3d 665, 666 [2006]), were we to address the initial decision to impound defendant’s vehicle, we would agree with defendant that the People failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that such decision was based upon the existence of some standardized criteria or routine procedure (see Colorado v Bertine, 479 US 367, 374-375 [1987]; People v O’Connell, 188 AD2d 902, 903 [1992]). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) PeoplevLeonard (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Specifically, the procedures must be "designed to meet the legitimate objectives of the search while 1 Although not preserved for our review (see People v Jacquin, 71 NY2d 825, 826-827 [1988]; People v Durrin, 32 AD3d 665, 666 [2006]), were we to address the initial decision to impound defendant's vehicle, we would agree with defendant that the People failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that such decision was based upon the existence of some standardized criteria or routine procedure (see Colorado v Bertine, 479 US 367, 374-375 [1987]; People v O'Connell, 188 AD2d 902, 903 [1992]). -3…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Leonard (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Although not preserved for our review (see People v Jacquin, 71 NY2d 825, 826-827 [1988]; People v Durrin, 32 AD3d 665, 666 [2006]), were we to address the initial decision to impound defendant’s vehicle, we would agree with defendant that the People failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that such decision was based upon the existence of some standardized criteria or routine procedure (see Colorado v Bertine, 479 US 367, 374-375 [1987]; People v O’Connell, 188 AD2d 902, 903 [1992]). .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Bennett
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Defendant’s further contention that the court erred in admitting in evidence the recording of a jailhouse telephone call between defendant and his girlfriend is not preserved for our review (see generally People v Jacquin, 71 NY2d 825, 826-827 [1988]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Davis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · confidence medium
Initially, we note that defendant’s assertion on appeal that his confession was rendered involuntary and should have been suppressed as the result of an unlawful warrantless arrest was not preserved, as this specific challenge was not made to County Court (see People v Jacquin, 71 NY2d 825, 826-827 [1988]; People v Durrin, 32 AD3d 665, 666 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Caballero
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his pr e-Miranda conversation with the police constituted custodial interrogation by failing to raise that specific contention in his motion papers or at the hearing (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Jacquin, 71 NY2d 825, 826-827 [1988]; see also People v Myers, 1 AD3d 382, 383 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 631 [2004]; People v Martinez, 287 AD2d 654 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 757 [2002]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Berg (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.Y. App. Div. · 1998 · confidence medium
The critical inquiry is whether such refusal is testimonial (see, People v Hager, supra, at 142) and the product of custodial interrogation (see, People v Jacquin, supra, at 826).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Richard K. Jacquin v. Walter Stenzil, Warden, Nassau County Correctional Center
2d Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
People v. Jacquin, 71 N.Y.2d 825, 826 , 522 N.E.2d 1026, 1027 , 527 N.Y.S.2d 728, 729 (1988).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Price
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his conten tion that the evidence must be suppressed based on the use of excessive force by the police because he failed to raise that specific contention in his motion papers or at the hearing (see People v Gomez, 193 AD2d 882, 883 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 708 [1993]; see generally People v Jacquin, 71 NY2d 825, 826-827 [1988]; People v Caballero, 23 AD3d 1031 , 1032 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 846 [2006]).
discussed Cited "see" PRICE, JR., BOBBY, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the evidence must be suppressed based on the use of excessive force by the police because he failed to raise that specific contention in his motion papers or at the hearing (see People v Gomez, 193 AD2d 882, 883 , lv denied 82 NY2d 708 ; see generally People v Jacquin, 71 NY2d 825, 826-827 ; People v Caballero, 23 AD3d 1031, 1032 , lv denied 6 NY3d 846 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Price
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his conten tion that the evidence must be suppressed based on the use of excessive force by the police because he failed to raise that specific contention in his motion papers or at the hearing (see People v Gomez, 193 AD2d 882, 883 [1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 708 [1993]; see generally People v Jacquin, 71 NY2d 825, 826-827 [1988]; People v Caballero, 23 AD3d 1031 , 1032 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 846 [2006]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Berg
NY · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
This is because the policies behind the Self-Incrimination Clause “are served when the privilege is asserted to spare the accused from having to reveal, directly or indirectly, his knowledge of facts relating him to the offense or from having to share his thoughts and beliefs with the Government” (id., at 213). *705 Results of field sobriety tests such as the horizontal gaze nystagmus, walk and turn and one-leg stand are not deemed testimonial or communicative because they “do not reveal a person’s subjective knowledge or thought processes but, rather, exhibit a person’s degree of ph…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Richard K. Jacquin
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 17, 1988.
522 N.E.2d 1026
1988 N.Y. LEXIS 180
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Steven G. Legum for appellant., Denis Dillon, District Attorney (Peter R. Shapiro and Anthony J. Gírese of counsel), for respondent.
Cited by 34 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated and subsequently charged with that crime as a felony (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192 [3], [5]). After his arrest he was removed to police headquarters where performance tests were administered to determine his sobriety. During the tests he was questioned about his pedigree and the fact that he had been requested to take a chemical analysis test and refused to do so (see, Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194); he was also asked if he had been under medication at the time he was operating his vehicle or whether he was a diabetic. An audio/video tape of the questions and answers and of the performance tests was made.

Before trial defendant moved to generally suppress the sound portion of the tape because no Miranda warnings had been administered to him before he was questioned. The Judicial Hearing Officer ruled that Miranda warnings were not required because the police had not interrogated defendant (see, Rhode Is. v Innis, 446 US 291, 301; Edwards v Bray, 688 F2d 91, 92). At trial defendant made no objection to admission of police form 38 which contained many of the same questions and answers. It is the Judicial Hearing Officer’s determination that the audio/visual tape should not be suppressed, which was confirmed by the trial court and upheld by the Appellate Division, to which defendant assigns error.

Performance tests need not be preceded by Miranda warnings and, generally an audio/visual tape of such tests, including any colloquy between the test-giver and the defendant not constituting custodial interrogation, is admissible (see, People v Hager, 69 NY2d 141; see also, People v Boudreau, 115 AD2d 652). In this case defendant asserts that some of the questions and answers recorded on the tape constituted inadmissible custodial interrogation but inasmuch as he moved to suppress audio portions of the tape generally and failed to identify the specific questions and answers he found objectionable, the[*827] contentions of inadmissibility he now raises, are unpreserved and beyond our review (see, People v Tutt, 38 NY2d 1011).

We have considered defendant’s remaining argument — that the prosecutor was vindictive in indicting him for a felony after negotiations for a plea to a misdemeanor charge of driving while intoxicated failed — and find no merit to it (see, Bordenkircher v Hayes, 434 US 357, reh denied 435 US 918).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judge Titone taking no part.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.