People v. Taylor, 302 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Taylor, 302 A.D.2d 868 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 · …reasonably prompted by a concern to secure the safety of the investigating officer . . . and was not solely motivated for the purpose of eliciting testimonial evidence at p. 868 ✓
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Perez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
The correction officer testified at the hearing that it was his practice to ask inmates whether they “had anything on” them before any pat frisk so that he would not “get stuck or cut.” Although the correction officer admitted that he asked the question in part to obtain information about a possible violation of inmate rules, the question was “ ‘reasonably prompted by a concern to secure the safety of the investigating officer[ ] . . . and was not solely motivated for the purpose of eliciting testimonial evidence’ ” (People v Taylor, 302 AD2d 868, 868-869 [2003], lv denied 99 N…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Munford
N.Y. Sup. Kings · 2004 · signal: see also · confidence low
At the scene, the officers recovered two guns from defendant's jacket pockets, and for safety concerns the police reasonably feared that a third weapon could have been similarly concealed on his person ( see People v Ingram , 177 AD2d 650 , appeal denied 79 NY2d 858 ; see also People v Taylor , 302 AD2d 868 , lv denied 99 NY2d 658 ; People v Jenkins , 208 AD2d 459 , appeal denied 85 NY2d 863 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Allen E. Taylor
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 7, 2003.
302 A.D.2d 868
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of Erie County Court (McCarthy, J.), entered Jtily 25, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]) for the stabbing death of his girlfriend, defendant contends that his general waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass County Court’s suppression ruling. We reject that contention (see generally People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831, 833). In any event, the record supports the court’s determination that the statements of defendant to the police before he received Miranda warnings were spontaneous and not the result of police interrogation or its functional equivalent (see People v Engert, 263 AD2d 959, lv denied 93 NY2d 1017). The question asked by the police concerning the location of the murder weapon falls within the public safety exception to the Miranda rule, inasmuch as it was “reasonably prompted by a concern to secure the safety of the investigating officers * * *[*869] and was not solely motivated for the purpose of eliciting testimonial evidence” (People v Ingram, 177 AD2d 650, 651, lv denied 79 NY2d 858). The record also supports the court’s determination that defendant thereafter knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 287; see also Engert, 263 AD2d 959). The waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his further contention concerning the severity of the sentence (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Wisner, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.