absence of Miranda warning in New York

2001In view of the foregoing, the hearing court properly found that, under the circumstances, a reasonable person innocent of any crime would not have believed he was in custody (see, People v Morales, 65 NY2d 997 ; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, cert denied 400 US 851 ), and the defendant was not entitled to the suppression of that statement based on the absence of Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ).

1978The appellant’s admission that he owned the black floral shirt reportedly worn by the suspect and found in a brown paper bag at the scene of the burglary was properly admitted in evidence, notwithstanding the absence of Miranda warnings, as the appellant was not in custody at the time of the interrogation (see Matter of Kwok T., 43 NY2d 213, 219-220 ; People v Rodney P., 21 NY2d 1, 10-11 ; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 592-593 , cert den 400 US 851 ; Oregon v Mathiason, 429 US 492, 495 ).

2007The record does not support the defendant’s contention that the defense counsel was ineffective for not adequately challenging the admissibility of a statement that the defendant made to a detective, as the statement was clearly spontaneous in nature and thus was admissible in the absence of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; People v Johnson, 240 AD2d 432 [1997]; People v Davis, 32 AD3d 445 [2006]; People v Morgan, 226 AD2d 398, 399, 401 [1996]; People v Alexander, 164 AD2d 892 [1990]; People v Brown, 161 AD2d 778 [1990]).

1998Although the defendant’s state ments were made in the absence of Miranda warnings, the statements were voluntary and spontaneous, and were not the product of police interrogation (see, People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 293-295 ; People v Rosario, 245 AD2d 470 ; People v Morgan, 226 AD2d 398, 401 ).

2014We are also unpersuaded by defendant’s argument that her oral statements should have been suppressed because they were the product of a custodial interrogation conducted in the absence of Miranda warnings. 1 The majority of the challenged statements were made by defendant to Fortuna over the telephone while she was in her home during the standoff. 2 The purpose of the questions posed to defendant by Fortuna during this time was to quell the volatile situation and to determine the location of the weapon, not to elicit incriminating evidence (see People v Sanchez, 255 AD2d 614, 615 [1998], lv de

2014We are also unpersuaded by defendant’s argument that her oral statements should have been suppressed because they were the product of a custodial interrogation conducted in the absence of Miranda warnings. 1 The majority of the challenged statements were made by defendant to Fortuna over the telephone while she was in her home during the standoff. 2 The purpose of the questions posed to defendant by Fortuna during this time was to quell the volatile situation and to determine the location of the weapon, not to elicit incriminating evidence (see People v Sanchez, 255 AD2d 614, 615 [1998], lv de

2013Although defendant argues that he was in custody at KMH and was thus entitled to Miranda warnings before being interrogated there (see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]), the record does not disclose whether, at the time he made the statements at issue, he was in the custody of KMH mental health authorities pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 (a) (1) or whether, conversely, he was in the custody of police pursuant to section 9.41 (see Gonzalez v State of New York, 121 Misc 2d 210, 214-215 [1983], revd on other grounds 110 AD2d 810 [1985], appeal

2013Although defendant argues that he was in custody at KMH and was thus entitled to Miranda warnings before being interrogated there (see generally People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]), the record does not disclose whether, at the time he made the statements at issue, he was in the custody of KMH mental health authorities pursuant to Mental Hygiene Law § 9.39 (a) (1) or whether, conversely, he was in the custody of police pursuant to section 9.41 (see Gonzalez v State of New York, 121 Misc 2d 210, 214-215 [1983], revd on other grounds 110 AD2d 810 [1985], appeal

2014The questioning, therefore, fell squarely within the public safety exception to Miranda, as it was aimed at minimizing risks to the police officers and the general public (see New York v Quarles, 467 US 649, 655-656 [1984]; People v Gause, 50 AD3d 1392, 1394 [2008]).

2014The questioning, therefore, fell squarely within the public safety exception to Miranda, as it was aimed at minimizing risks to the police officers and the general public (see New York v Quarles, 467 US 649, 655-656 [1984]; People v Gause, 50 AD3d 1392, 1394 [2008]).

2014The questioning, therefore, fell squarely within the public safety exception to Miranda, as it was aimed at minimizing risks to the police officers and the general public (see New York v Quarles, 467 US 649, 655-656 [1984]; People v Gause, 50 AD3d 1392, 1394 [2008]).

2014The questioning, therefore, fell squarely within the public safety exception to Miranda, as it was aimed at minimizing risks to the police officers and the general public (see New York v Quarles, 467 US 649, 655-656 [1984]; People v Gause, 50 AD3d 1392, 1394 [2008]).

2023The court also denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence on the ground that the defendant's arrest was unlawful and to suppress statements he made to law enforcement officials on the ground that they were the product of custodial interrogation conducted in the absence of Miranda warnings ( see Miranda v Arizona , 384 US 436 ).

2007Thus, they were admissible in the absence of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; People v Buffa, 266 AD2d 400, 401 [1999]; People v Rosario, supra at 471 ; People v Johnson, 240 AD2d 432, 432 [1997]).

2025Defendant also contends that the statements that he made at the hospital should have been suppressed because the "cat [was] out of the bag" ( United States v Bayer , 331 US 532, 540 [1947], reh denied 332 US 785 [1947]). "[T]he 'letting the cat out of the bag' theory . . . 'treats successive confessions as equally inadmissible, where the first is infected by the absence of Miranda warnings and the others follow in short order, even though accompanied by warnings' " ( People v Johnson , 121 AD2d 84, 87-88 [4th Dept 1986], quoting People v Parker , 82 AD2d 661, 668 [2d Dept 1981], affd 57 NY2d 8

1998Unlike Parker (supra) the successive oral statements/ confession to the probation officer is not “infected” by the absence of Miranda warnings on the first written statement since the written statement purports to be a fully Mirandized statement (compare, People v Tanner, 30 NY2d 102 ; People v Bodner, 75 AD2d 440 ; People v Newson, 68 AD2d 377 ).

2020Statements made in response to such police words or actions are inadmissible in the absence of Miranda warnings ( see People v Dunbar , 24 NY3d at 314 ).

2019Statements made in response to custodial interrogation are inadmissible in the absence of Miranda warnings ( see People v Dunbar , 24 NY3d 304, 314 ; People v Ferro , 63 NY2d 316, 322 ; People v Tavares-Nunez , 87 AD3d 1171, 1172 ).

2025Defendant also contends that the statements that he made at the hospital should have been suppressed because the "cat [was] out of the bag" ( United States v Bayer , 331 US 532, 540 [1947], reh denied 332 US 785 [1947]). "[T]he 'letting the cat out of the bag' theory . . . 'treats successive confessions as equally inadmissible, where the first is infected by the absence of Miranda warnings and the others follow in short order, even though accompanied by warnings' " ( People v Johnson , 121 AD2d 84, 87-88 [4th Dept 1986], quoting People v Parker , 82 AD2d 661, 668 [2d Dept 1981], affd 57 NY2d 8

1998Unlike Parker (supra) the successive oral statements/ confession to the probation officer is not “infected” by the absence of Miranda warnings on the first written statement since the written statement purports to be a fully Mirandized statement (compare, People v Tanner, 30 NY2d 102 ; People v Bodner, 75 AD2d 440 ; People v Newson, 68 AD2d 377 ).

2007Thus, they were admissible in the absence of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; People v Buffa, 266 AD2d 400, 401 [1999]; People v Rosario, supra at 471 ; People v Johnson, 240 AD2d 432, 432 [1997]).

2007The record does not support the defendant’s contention that the defense counsel was ineffective for not adequately challenging the admissibility of a statement that the defendant made to a detective, as the statement was clearly spontaneous in nature and thus was admissible in the absence of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; People v Johnson, 240 AD2d 432 [1997]; People v Davis, 32 AD3d 445 [2006]; People v Morgan, 226 AD2d 398, 399, 401 [1996]; People v Alexander, 164 AD2d 892 [1990]; People v Brown, 161 AD2d 778 [1990]).

2021While a defendant's statements made in response to police interrogation, or its functional equivalent, are inadmissible in the absence of Miranda warnings ( see Rhode Island v Innis , 446 US 291, 301 ; People v Crawford , 163 AD3d at 986), "volunteered statements, meaning those that are self-generated and made without apparent external cause, are admissible even if the defendant was in custody and unwarned" ( People v Tavares-Nunez , 87 AD3d 1171, 1172 [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]).

2019Statements made in response to custodial interrogation are inadmissible in the absence of Miranda warnings ( see People v Dunbar , 24 NY3d 304, 314 ; People v Ferro , 63 NY2d 316, 322 ; People v Tavares-Nunez , 87 AD3d 1171, 1172 ).

2025It is well settled that Miranda warnings must be given when a defendant is subject to custodial interrogation ( see People v Paulman , 5 NY3d 122, 129 [2005]; People v Berg , 92 NY2d 701, 704 [1999]; People v Torres , 172 AD3d 758 , 760 [2d Dept 2019]).

2018Contrary to the hearing court's determination, the challenged pre- Miranda statements were the product of custodial interrogation by Detective Gamble, who should have known that his questions were likely to elicit an incriminating response ( see People v Paulman, 5 NY3d at 129 ; cf. People v Chambers, 184 AD2d 716, 717 ).

2022Thus, defendant's statements at the sporting goods store were the product of custodial interrogation and, in the absence of Miranda warnings, should have been suppressed ( see People v Nehma , 101 AD3d 1170, 1173 [2012]; People v Baggett , 57 AD3d 1093, 1095 [2008]; People v Burry , 52 AD3d 856, 859 [2008], lv dismissed 10 NY3d 956 [2008]).

2019Here, contrary to the People's contention, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant was in police custody at the time that she made the statements ( see People v Yukl , 25 NY2d 585, 589 ; People v Tavares-Nunez , 87 AD3d at 1172 ; People v Baggett , 57 AD3d 1093, 1094 ; People v Payne , 41 AD3d 512, 513 ; People v Vachet , 5 AD3d 700, 701 ).

2009Lewis was outside the Staten Island house and not in custody when he made the statements to the agent (see People v Rodney P. [Anonymous], 21 NY2d 1, 10-11 [1967]; Donnino, New York Court of Appeals on Criminal Law §§ 7:26, 7:27 [2d ed]).

1978The appellant’s admission that he owned the black floral shirt reportedly worn by the suspect and found in a brown paper bag at the scene of the burglary was properly admitted in evidence, notwithstanding the absence of Miranda warnings, as the appellant was not in custody at the time of the interrogation (see Matter of Kwok T., 43 NY2d 213, 219-220 ; People v Rodney P., 21 NY2d 1, 10-11 ; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 592-593 , cert den 400 US 851 ; Oregon v Mathiason, 429 US 492, 495 ).

2009(Minnesota v Murphy, 465 US 420 [1984].) Thereafter, in People v English ( 73 NY2d 20 [1989]), the Court of Appeals held that a parolee’s statements made to his parole officer while in custody are inadmissible in the absence of Miranda warnings.

2002In People v English ( 73 NY2d 20, 23 [1989]), it was argued that since “answers given by parolees during interviews with their parole officers are invariably compelled in a constitutional sense due to the inherently coercive effect of the parolee’s legal obligation to answer truthfully” any incriminating statement given in the absence of Miranda warnings is per se, illegally obtained.

2007Thus, they were admissible in the absence of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; People v Buffa, 266 AD2d 400, 401 [1999]; People v Rosario, supra at 471 ; People v Johnson, 240 AD2d 432, 432 [1997]).

2000The evidence adduced at the hearing established that the statements were spontaneous in nature and, thus, admissible in the absence of Miranda warnings (see, People v Buffa, 266 AD2d 400, 401 ; People v Isasi, 265 AD2d 426, 427 ; People v Tomlin, 265 AD2d 353 ; see also, Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ).

2026The absence of Miranda warnings prior to defendant's statement admitting possession of a gun was not improper because given in non-custodial circumstances ( see People v Bennett , 70 NY2d 891, 893-894 [1987]).

2026The absence of Miranda warnings prior to defendant's statement admitting possession of a gun was not improper because given in non-custodial circumstances ( see People v Bennett , 70 NY2d 891, 893-894 [1987]).