Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New York opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Cruzgreen1 sentence2023The court explained that “public policy favors a prophylactic rule of exclusion where law enforcement officers misstate facts” and where, as in that case, the defendant was misinformed by the misrepresentation (United States v Cruz, 701 F Supp 440, 447-448 [SD NY 1988]; cf. People v Dunbar, 24 NY3d 304 [2014] 1 The prosecution’s assertion that the decision here is controlled by United States v Patane ( 542 US 630 [2004]), which held that a lack of Miranda warnings on its own does not require suppression of the physical fruits of a suspect’s unwarned by voluntary statements, is unpreserved and | 1 | 1 |
People v. Maerlinggreen1 sentence2019Furthermore, the record supports the court's finding that the statement was voluntarily made, so as to permit its use for impeachment purposes notwithstanding the lack of Miranda warnings ( see Harris v New [*2]York , 401 US 222 [1971]; People v Maerling , 64 NY2d 134, 140 [1984]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Lynesgreen1 sentence2015The officer’s expressions of disbelief did not constitute the functional equivalent of interrogation (see People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 480 [1982]; People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 294-295 [1980]). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Riversgreen1 sentence2015The officer’s expressions of disbelief did not constitute the functional equivalent of interrogation (see People v Rivers, 56 NY2d 476, 480 [1982]; People v Lynes, 49 NY2d 286, 294-295 [1980]). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harris v. New York
green
2 sentences2019Furthermore, the record supports the court's finding that the statement was voluntarily made, so as to permit its use for impeachment purposes notwithstanding the lack of Miranda warnings ( see Harris v New [*2]York , 401 US 222 [1971]; People v Maerling , 64 NY2d 134, 140 [1984]). 1980It would make of the Fifth Amendment not only a human safeguard against judicially coerced self-disclosure but a positive invitation to mutilate the truth a party offers to tell.” On similar reasoning the Supreme Court has upheld the use for purposes of attacking the credibility of defendant’s trial testimony of a statement inadmissible on the prosecution’s case in chief because of the lack of Miranda warnings (Harris v New York, 401 US 222 , affg 25 NY2d 175 , supra) or because obtained in contravention of defendant’s right to counsel (Michigan v Tucker, 417 US 433 , supra; Oregon v Haas, 420 | 2 | 1980–2019 |
People v. Dunbar
green
1 sentence2023The court explained that “public policy favors a prophylactic rule of exclusion where law enforcement officers misstate facts” and where, as in that case, the defendant was misinformed by the misrepresentation (United States v Cruz, 701 F Supp 440, 447-448 [SD NY 1988]; cf. People v Dunbar, 24 NY3d 304 [2014] 1 The prosecution’s assertion that the decision here is controlled by United States v Patane ( 542 US 630 [2004]), which held that a lack of Miranda warnings on its own does not require suppression of the physical fruits of a suspect’s unwarned by voluntary statements, is unpreserved and | 1 | 2023–2023 |
United States v. Patane
green
1 sentence2023The court explained that “public policy favors a prophylactic rule of exclusion where law enforcement officers misstate facts” and where, as in that case, the defendant was misinformed by the misrepresentation (United States v Cruz, 701 F Supp 440, 447-448 [SD NY 1988]; cf. People v Dunbar, 24 NY3d 304 [2014] 1 The prosecution’s assertion that the decision here is controlled by United States v Patane ( 542 US 630 [2004]), which held that a lack of Miranda warnings on its own does not require suppression of the physical fruits of a suspect’s unwarned by voluntary statements, is unpreserved and | 1 | 2023–2023 |
People v. Crimmins
green
1 sentence2019Finally, any error regarding the statement was harmless ( see People v Crimmins , 36 NY2d 230 [1975]). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
New York v. Quarles
green
1 sentence2007Sergeant Kiyar’s questions were directed at locating the stolen weapons, one of which was loaded, and his inquiry falls within the public safety exception to Miranda (New York v Quarles, 467 US 649 [1984]). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Hughes
neutral
1 sentence1984Despite the lack of Miranda warnings, the trial court did not err in refusing to suppress these statements, particularly since they occurred during the commission of a crime (see People v Hughes, 59 Misc 2d 303 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Fox
neutral
1 sentence1984Defendant’s request for an additional five peremptory challenges during voir dire was properly denied (CPL 270.25, subd 2, par [b]; People v Fox, 99 Misc 2d 1061 ). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Harris
green
1 sentence1980It would make of the Fifth Amendment not only a human safeguard against judicially coerced self-disclosure but a positive invitation to mutilate the truth a party offers to tell.” On similar reasoning the Supreme Court has upheld the use for purposes of attacking the credibility of defendant’s trial testimony of a statement inadmissible on the prosecution’s case in chief because of the lack of Miranda warnings (Harris v New York, 401 US 222 , affg 25 NY2d 175 , supra) or because obtained in contravention of defendant’s right to counsel (Michigan v Tucker, 417 US 433 , supra; Oregon v Haas, 420 | 1 | 1980–1980 |
People v. Wise
green
1 sentence1980We, likewise, have held that "[o]nce a particular statement is found appropriate for impeachment purposes, any Miranda infirmity becomes irrelevant” (People v Wise, 46 NY2d 321, 329 , supra). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Oregon v. Hass
green
1 sentence1980It would make of the Fifth Amendment not only a human safeguard against judicially coerced self-disclosure but a positive invitation to mutilate the truth a party offers to tell.” On similar reasoning the Supreme Court has upheld the use for purposes of attacking the credibility of defendant’s trial testimony of a statement inadmissible on the prosecution’s case in chief because of the lack of Miranda warnings (Harris v New York, 401 US 222 , affg 25 NY2d 175 , supra) or because obtained in contravention of defendant’s right to counsel (Michigan v Tucker, 417 US 433 , supra; Oregon v Haas, 420 | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Michigan v. Tucker
green
1 sentence1980It would make of the Fifth Amendment not only a human safeguard against judicially coerced self-disclosure but a positive invitation to mutilate the truth a party offers to tell.” On similar reasoning the Supreme Court has upheld the use for purposes of attacking the credibility of defendant’s trial testimony of a statement inadmissible on the prosecution’s case in chief because of the lack of Miranda warnings (Harris v New York, 401 US 222 , affg 25 NY2d 175 , supra) or because obtained in contravention of defendant’s right to counsel (Michigan v Tucker, 417 US 433 , supra; Oregon v Haas, 420 | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.