requirement that Miranda warning in New York

1999The issue of whether a suspect is in custody so as to trigger the requirement that Miranda warnings be provided is generally a question of fact (see, People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837 ) and warrants an assessment of whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought that he or she was in custody (see, People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234, 240 ; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ).

1999The issue of whether a suspect is in custody so as to trigger the requirement that Miranda warnings be provided is generally a question of fact (see, People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837 ) and warrants an assessment of whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought that he or she was in custody (see, People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234, 240 ; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ).

1999The issue of whether a suspect is in custody so as to trigger the requirement that Miranda warnings be provided is generally a question of fact (see, People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837 ) and warrants an assessment of whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought that he or she was in custody (see, People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234, 240 ; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ).

1999The issue of whether a suspect is in custody so as to trigger the requirement that Miranda warnings be provided is generally a question of fact (see, People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837 ) and warrants an assessment of whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought that he or she was in custody (see, People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234, 240 ; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ).

1999The issue of whether a suspect is in custody so as to trigger the requirement that Miranda warnings be provided is generally a question of fact (see, People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837 ) and warrants an assessment of whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought that he or she was in custody (see, People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234, 240 ; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ).

1999The issue of whether a suspect is in custody so as to trigger the requirement that Miranda warnings be provided is generally a question of fact (see, People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837 ) and warrants an assessment of whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought that he or she was in custody (see, People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234, 240 ; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ).

1999The issue of whether a suspect is in custody so as to trigger the requirement that Miranda warnings be provided is generally a question of fact (see, People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837 ) and warrants an assessment of whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought that he or she was in custody (see, People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234, 240 ; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ).

1999The issue of whether a suspect is in custody so as to trigger the requirement that Miranda warnings be provided is generally a question of fact (see, People v Centano, 76 NY2d 837 ) and warrants an assessment of whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought that he or she was in custody (see, People v Hicks, 68 NY2d 234, 240 ; People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ).

1996The test to determine whether an individual is in custody so as to trigger the requirement that Miranda warnings be provided is whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought he or she was in custody under the circumstances (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ; People v Nolcox, 190 AD2d 824 ; People v Smedman, 184 AD2d 600, 604 ).

1993That the questioning takes place in a police station, or that a person is read his or her rights, does not automatically transform investigatory questioning into a custodial interrogation, even if that person is a "suspect” (see, People v Smedman, 184 AD2d 600 ).

1998Plainly, his questions were not intended to obtain incriminating evidence, but rather to ascertain, for reasons of public safety, the location of a dangerous weapon and to quell an escalating and potentially volatile situation (see, People v Melvin, 188 AD2d 555, 556 , lv denied 81 NY2d 889 ; People v Ingram, 177 AD2d 650, 651 , lv denied 79 NY2d 858 ; cf., People v Adams, 225 AD2d 506 , lv denied 88 NY2d 932 ; compare, Matter of John C., 130 AD2d 246, 253-254 ).

1998Plainly, his questions were not intended to obtain incriminating evidence, but rather to ascertain, for reasons of public safety, the location of a dangerous weapon and to quell an escalating and potentially volatile situation (see, People v Melvin, 188 AD2d 555, 556 , lv denied 81 NY2d 889 ; People v Ingram, 177 AD2d 650, 651 , lv denied 79 NY2d 858 ; cf., People v Adams, 225 AD2d 506 , lv denied 88 NY2d 932 ; compare, Matter of John C., 130 AD2d 246, 253-254 ).

1998Plainly, his questions were not intended to obtain incriminating evidence, but rather to ascertain, for reasons of public safety, the location of a dangerous weapon and to quell an escalating and potentially volatile situation (see, People v Melvin, 188 AD2d 555, 556 , lv denied 81 NY2d 889 ; People v Ingram, 177 AD2d 650, 651 , lv denied 79 NY2d 858 ; cf., People v Adams, 225 AD2d 506 , lv denied 88 NY2d 932 ; compare, Matter of John C., 130 AD2d 246, 253-254 ).

1998County Court found that Shade’s inquiries as to the location of the gun, made in the course of apprehending a suspect who had reportedly just discharged it in a public place, fell squarely within the “public safety” exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be administered prior to any custodial interrogation (see, New York v Quarles, 467 US 649, 655-656 ).

1998Plainly, his questions were not intended to obtain incriminating evidence, but rather to ascertain, for reasons of public safety, the location of a dangerous weapon and to quell an escalating and potentially volatile situation (see, People v Melvin, 188 AD2d 555, 556 , lv denied 81 NY2d 889 ; People v Ingram, 177 AD2d 650, 651 , lv denied 79 NY2d 858 ; cf., People v Adams, 225 AD2d 506 , lv denied 88 NY2d 932 ; compare, Matter of John C., 130 AD2d 246, 253-254 ).

1996The test to determine whether an individual is in custody so as to trigger the requirement that Miranda warnings be provided is whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought he or she was in custody under the circumstances (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 , cert denied 400 US 851 ; People v Nolcox, 190 AD2d 824 ; People v Smedman, 184 AD2d 600, 604 ).

1992That the questioning takes place in a police station, or that a person is read his or her rights, does not automatically transform investigatory questioning into a custodial interrogation, even if that person is a "suspect” (see, People v Brown, 178 AD2d 484 ).

1992It is well settled that the test to determine whether a person is in custody so as to trigger the requirement that Miranda warnings be given is whether a reasonable person, innocent of any crime, would have thought he or she was in custody (see, People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 , cert denied 400 US 851 ; see also, People v Bailey, 140 AD2d 356 ; People v Oates, 104 AD2d 907 ).