record of the suppression hearing in New York

2017Contrary to defendant’s further contention, however, the court did not err in refusing to suppress his statements to the police. -4- 445 KA 15-00535 With respect to defendant’s contention that he was too intoxicated to waive his rights, the record of the suppression hearing does not establish that, at the time he waived his Miranda rights, he was intoxicated “ ‘to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements’ ” (People v Schompert, 19 NY2d 300, 305 , cert denied 389 US 874 ; see People v Beasley, 147 AD3d 1549, 1550 ; People v Peterkin, 89 AD3d 1455, 1455

2017With respect to defendant’s contention that he was too intoxicated to waive his rights, the record of the suppression hearing does not establish that, at the time he waived his Miranda rights, he was intoxicated “ ‘to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements’ ” (People v Schompert, 19 NY2d 300, 305 [1967], cert denied 389 US 874 [1967]; see People v Beasley, 147 AD3d 1549, 1550 [2017]; People v Peterkin, 89 AD3d 1455, 1455 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 885 [2012]).

2017Contrary to defendant’s further contention, however, the court did not err in refusing to suppress his statements to the police. -4- 445 KA 15-00535 With respect to defendant’s contention that he was too intoxicated to waive his rights, the record of the suppression hearing does not establish that, at the time he waived his Miranda rights, he was intoxicated “ ‘to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements’ ” (People v Schompert, 19 NY2d 300, 305 , cert denied 389 US 874 ; see People v Beasley, 147 AD3d 1549, 1550 ; People v Peterkin, 89 AD3d 1455, 1455

2017With respect to defendant’s contention that he was too intoxicated to waive his rights, the record of the suppression hearing does not establish that, at the time he waived his Miranda rights, he was intoxicated “ ‘to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements’ ” (People v Schompert, 19 NY2d 300, 305 [1967], cert denied 389 US 874 [1967]; see People v Beasley, 147 AD3d 1549, 1550 [2017]; People v Peterkin, 89 AD3d 1455, 1455 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 885 [2012]).

2017Contrary to defendant’s further contention, however, the court did not err in refusing to suppress his statements to the police. -4- 445 KA 15-00535 With respect to defendant’s contention that he was too intoxicated to waive his rights, the record of the suppression hearing does not establish that, at the time he waived his Miranda rights, he was intoxicated “ ‘to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements’ ” (People v Schompert, 19 NY2d 300, 305 , cert denied 389 US 874 ; see People v Beasley, 147 AD3d 1549, 1550 ; People v Peterkin, 89 AD3d 1455, 1455

2017With respect to defendant’s contention that he was too intoxicated to waive his rights, the record of the suppression hearing does not establish that, at the time he waived his Miranda rights, he was intoxicated “ ‘to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements’ ” (People v Schompert, 19 NY2d 300, 305 [1967], cert denied 389 US 874 [1967]; see People v Beasley, 147 AD3d 1549, 1550 [2017]; People v Peterkin, 89 AD3d 1455, 1455 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 885 [2012]).

2013Contrary to the further contention of defendant, “the record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that the statements at issue were not rendered involuntary by reason of any alleged coercion by the police” (People v Kirk, 96 AD3d 1354 , 1357 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1012 [2013]; see People v Camacho, 70 AD3d 1393, 1393-1394 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 886 [2010]; People v Martin, 55 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 927 [2000], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 855 [2009]).

2013Contrary to the further contention of defendant, “the record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that the statements at issue were not rendered involuntary by reason of any alleged coercion by the police” (People v Kirk, 96 AD3d 1354 , 1357 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1012 [2013]; see People v Camacho, 70 AD3d 1393, 1393-1394 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 886 [2010]; People v Martin, 55 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 927 [2000], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 855 [2009]).

2013The record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that the statements were not coerced, i.e., defendant received no promises in exchange for making the statements and he was not threatened in any way, and “the court’s determination is entitled to great deference” (People v Peay, 77 AD3d 1309, 1310 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 955 [2010]; see People v Heary, 104 AD3d 1208, 1210 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 943 [2013], reconsideration denied 21 NY3d 1016 [2013]; see generally People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]).

2013The record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that the statements were not coerced, i.e., defendant received no promises in exchange for making the statements and he was not threatened in any way, and “the court’s determination is entitled to great deference” (People v Peay, 77 AD3d 1309, 1310 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 955 [2010]; see People v Heary, 104 AD3d 1208, 1210 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 943 [2013], reconsideration denied 21 NY3d 1016 [2013]; see generally People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]).

2011Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record of the suppression hearing fails to establish that he was intoxicated at the time he waived those rights “to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements” (People v Schompert, 19 NY2d 300, 305 [1967], cert denied 389 US 874 [1967]; see People v Lake, 45 AD3d 1409 , 1410 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 767 [2008]).

2011Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record of the suppression hearing fails to establish that he was intoxicated at the time he waived those rights “to the degree of mania, or of being unable to understand the meaning of his statements” (People v Schompert, 19 NY2d 300, 305 , cert denied 389 US 874 ; see People v Lake, 45 AD3d 1409, 1410 , lv denied 10 NY3d 767 ).

2013Contrary to the further contention of defendant, “the record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that the statements at issue were not rendered involuntary by reason of any alleged coercion by the police” (People v Kirk, 96 AD3d 1354 , 1357 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1012 [2013]; see People v Camacho, 70 AD3d 1393, 1393-1394 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 886 [2010]; People v Martin, 55 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 927 [2000], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 855 [2009]).

2013Contrary to the further contention of defendant, “the record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that the statements at issue were not rendered involuntary by reason of any alleged coercion by the police” (People v Kirk, 96 AD3d 1354 , 1357 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1012 [2013]; see People v Camacho, 70 AD3d 1393, 1393-1394 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 886 [2010]; People v Martin, 55 AD3d 1236, 1237 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 927 [2000], reconsideration denied 12 NY3d 855 [2009]).

2026The 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]).

2019Contrary to the People's contention, the record of the suppression hearing establishes that the defendant, who had been brought to the police station in handcuffs and placed in a locked interrogation room, was subjected to custodial interrogation when he was questioned about the subject incident ( see generally People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 ).

2015“Further, in view of the prior drug activity that had occurred in the [parking lot] where the vehicle was parked and [the anonymous citizen’s tip] of drug activity in that area, the officers possessed an objective, credible reason to approach the vehicle” and ask defendant for identification (People v Gandy, 85 AD3d 1595, 1596 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]; see People v Ramos, 60 AD3d 1317, 1317 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 928 [2009]).

2015“Further, in view of the prior drug activity that had occurred in the [parking lot] where the vehicle was parked and [the anonymous citizen’s tip] of drug activity in that area, the officers possessed an objective, credible reason to approach the vehicle” and ask defendant for identification (People v Gandy, 85 AD3d 1595, 1596 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]; see People v Ramos, 60 AD3d 1317, 1317 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 928 [2009]).

2015“Further, in view of the prior drug activity that had occurred in the [parking lot] where the vehicle was parked and [the anonymous citizen’s tip] of drug activity in that area, the officers possessed an objective, credible reason to approach the vehicle” and ask defendant for identification (People v Gandy, 85 AD3d 1595, 1596 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]; see People v Ramos, 60 AD3d 1317, 1317 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 928 [2009]).

2015“Further, in view of the prior drug activity that had occurred in the [parking lot] where the vehicle was parked and [the anonymous citizen’s tip] of drug activity in that area, the officers possessed an objective, credible reason to approach the vehicle” and ask defendant for identification (People v Gandy, 85 AD3d 1595, 1596 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 859 [2011]; see People v Ramos, 60 AD3d 1317, 1317 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 928 [2009]).

2010The record of the suppression hearing establishes that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant based upon information provided by an identified citizen informant and other witnesses (see People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Crews, 162 AD2d 462 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 854 [1990]).

2009Contrary to the contention of defendant, the record of the suppression hearing supports County Court’s determination that the police had probable cause to arrest him (see People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000 [2009]; see generally People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759 , 761 [1977]).

2017Based on the record of the suppression hearing, which includes a videotape of the interrogation, we conclude that defendant’s statements were not elicited by the police in violation of defendant’s due process rights (see generally Colorado v Connelly, 479 US 157, 167 [1986]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 413 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]).

2017Based on the record of the suppression hearing, which includes a videotape of the interrogation, we conclude that defendant’s statements were not elicited by the police in violation of defendant’s due process rights (see generally Colorado v Connelly, 479 US 157, 167 [1986]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 413 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]).

2017Contrary to defendant’s further contention, under the circumstances of this case, the fact that he was transported to a second police station and spent several hours with the police, and that the police conducted a polygraph examination, did not render his admission involuntary (see Serrano, 14 AD3d at 875 ; see also People v Ellis, 73 AD3d 1433, 1434 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [2010]; see generally People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 11 [1980]).

1996Considering the circumstances of the particular case (see, People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 10 ) and based upon the totality of the circumstances (see, People v Anderson, 42 NY2d 35, 38 ), there is ample evidence in the record of the suppression hearing to support County Court’s conclusion that defendant’s statements were voluntary (see, People v Jackson, 178 AD2d 851, 852-853 , lv denied 79 NY2d 1002 ).

2014“It is well settled that ‘information provided by an identified citizen accusing another individual of the commission of a specific crime is sufficient to provide the police with probable cause to arrest’ ” (People v McClain, 67 AD3d 1480 , 1480 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 803 [2010]; see People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000, 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]).

2010The record of the suppression hearing establishes that the police had probable cause to arrest defendant based upon information provided by an identified citizen informant and other witnesses (see People v Brito, 59 AD3d 1000 [2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 814 [2009]; People v Crews, 162 AD2d 462 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 854 [1990]).

2017Contrary to defendant’s further contention, under the circumstances of this case, the fact that he was transported to a second police station and spent several hours with the police, and that the police conducted a polygraph examination, did not render his admission involuntary (see Serrano, 14 AD3d at 875 ; see also People v Ellis, 73 AD3d 1433, 1434 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [2010]; see generally People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 11 [1980]).

2017Contrary to defendant’s further contention, under the circumstances of this case, the fact that he was transported to a second police station and spent several hours with the police, and that the police conducted a polygraph examination, did not render his admission involuntary (see Serrano, 14 AD3d at 875 ; see also People v Ellis, 73 AD3d 1433, 1434 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [2010]; see generally People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 11 [1980]).

2017Contrary to defendant’s further contention, under the circumstances of this case, the fact that he was transported to a second police station and spent several hours with the police, and that the police conducted a polygraph examination, did not render his admission involuntary (see Serrano, 14 AD3d at 875 ; see also People v Ellis, 73 AD3d 1433, 1434 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [2010]; see generally People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 11 [1980]).

2017Contrary to defendant’s further contention, under the circumstances of this case, the fact that he was transported to a second police station and spent several hours with the police, and that the police conducted a polygraph examination, did not render his admission involuntary (see Serrano, 14 AD3d at 875 ; see also People v Ellis, 73 AD3d 1433, 1434 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 851 [2010]; see generally People v Tarsia, 50 NY2d 1, 11 [1980]).

2017“It is axiomatic that the length of the interrogation period ‘does not, by itself, render the statement^] involuntary’ ” (People v Clark, 139 AD3d 1368, 1369 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 928 [2016]; see People v Weeks, 15 AD3d 845, 847 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 892 [2005]).

2017“It is axiomatic that the length of the interrogation period ‘does not, by itself, render the statement^] involuntary’ ” (People v Clark, 139 AD3d 1368, 1369 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 928 [2016]; see People v Weeks, 15 AD3d 845, 847 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 892 [2005]).

2022The record of the suppression hearing establishes that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights ( see Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436, 467-473 ) prior to any interrogation ( see People v Jin Cheng Lin , 26 NY3d 701, 725-726 ; People v Williams , 62 NY2d 285, 288-289 ; People v Humphrey , 176 AD3d 1101 , 1102).

2017Contrary to defendant’s further contention, despite his purported literacy deficiencies, the record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights before making the admission (see People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 288-289 [1984]; People v Bray, 295 AD2d 996, 997 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 694 [2002]).

2015The record of the suppression hearing establishes that the vehicle was parked when the officers approached, and there is no evidence that the driver’s ability to move the vehicle was blocked by any patrol vehicles (see Ocasio, 85 NY2d at 984 ).

2015The record of the suppression hearing establishes that the vehicle was parked when the officers approached, and there is no evidence that the driver’s ability to move the vehicle was blocked by any patrol vehicles (see Ocasio, 85 NY2d at 984 ).

2024The record of the suppression hearing supports the court's determination that there was a sufficiently pronounced break between the custodial questioning of defendant by police in the living room of defendant's residence in violation of his Miranda rights and his subsequent questioning by police at the police station ( see People v Paulman , 5 NY3d 122, 130-132 [2005]; People v Blair , 121 AD3d 1570, 1571 [4th Dept 2014]).

2022Contrary to defendant's contention, the record of the suppression hearing establishes that defendant was not in custody at the time he made the relevant statements ( see People v Lewis , 39 AD3d 1279 , 1279 [4th Dept 2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 866 [2007]) and therefore Miranda warnings were not required ( see People v Paulman , 5 NY3d 122, 129 [2005]; People v Hughes , 199 AD3d 1332, 1334 [4th Dept 2021]).

2014Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People met their burden of proof at the suppression hearing through the testimony of the two investigating officers who elicited the challenged statements, and the People were not required to produce a third officer who had minimal contact with defendant upon her initial arrival at the hospital (see People v Witherspoon, 66 NY2d 973, 974 [1985]; People v Caballero, 23 AD3d 1031 , 1032 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 846 [2006]; People v Holloway, 16 AD3d 1062, 1063 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 763 [2005]).

2014Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People met their burden of proof at the suppression hearing through the testimony of the two investigating officers who elicited the challenged statements, and the People were not required to produce a third officer who had minimal contact with defendant upon her initial arrival at the hospital (see People v Witherspoon, 66 NY2d 973, 974 [1985]; People v Caballero, 23 AD3d 1031 , 1032 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 846 [2006]; People v Holloway, 16 AD3d 1062, 1063 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 763 [2005]).

2017Based on the record of the suppression hearing, which includes a videotape of the interrogation, we conclude that defendant’s statements were not elicited by the police in violation of defendant’s due process rights (see generally Colorado v Connelly, 479 US 157, 167 [1986]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 413 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]).

2017Based on the record of the suppression hearing, which includes a videotape of the interrogation, we conclude that defendant’s statements were not elicited by the police in violation of defendant’s due process rights (see generally Colorado v Connelly, 479 US 157, 167 [1986]; People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 413 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]).

2017Contrary to defendant’s further contention, despite his purported literacy deficiencies, the record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights before making the admission (see People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 288-289 [1984]; People v Bray, 295 AD2d 996, 997 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 694 [2002]).

2017Contrary to defendant’s further contention, despite his purported literacy deficiencies, the record of the suppression hearing supports the court’s determination that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights before making the admission (see People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 288-289 [1984]; People v Bray, 295 AD2d 996, 997 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 694 [2002]).

2017“It is axiomatic that the length of the interrogation period ‘does not, by itself, render the statement^] involuntary’ ” (People v Clark, 139 AD3d 1368, 1369 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 928 [2016]; see People v Weeks, 15 AD3d 845, 847 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 892 [2005]).

2017“It is axiomatic that the length of the interrogation period ‘does not, by itself, render the statement^] involuntary’ ” (People v Clark, 139 AD3d 1368, 1369 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 928 [2016]; see People v Weeks, 15 AD3d 845, 847 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 892 [2005]).