Summary
In Allen, the questioning took place in the defendant's home, in the presence of his wife and others; there was testimony by the police officer that he would not have allowed the defendant to leave, but that intention was not communicated to the defendant and there were not objecive signs of compulsion.
Summary of this case from People v. ShiversOpinion
June 26, 1967
Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 28, 1966, which (1) granted defendant's motion to suppress his oral statement from use as evidence, pursuant to section 813-g of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and (2) dismissed the indictment, reversed, on the law and the facts, motion denied and indictment reinstated. The statement sought to be suppressed was made by defendant in his own home, in the presence of his wife and other persons, in answer to a question asked by the arresting police officer, prior to his arrest. Defendant had not been advised of his right to remain silent, of his right to counsel, or that any statement which he might make could be used against him. However, although the arresting officer testified that he went to defendant's home for the purpose of making an arrest, and would not have permitted defendant to leave the room before the interrogation was commenced, he had not so informed defendant; nor had he at that time taken him into custody or otherwise deprived him of his freedom of action. Defendant's statement was voluntarily made. It was not in any way coerced; nor was defendant under any compulsion to make it. In our opinion, suppression of the statement is not required, under the circumstances disclosed, by Miranda v. Arizona ( 384 U.S. 436) and we see no reason why we should go beyond what the Supreme Court has required in applying the rules therein announced (cf. People v. McQueen, 18 N.Y.2d 337). Beldock, P.J., Christ and Nolan, JJ., concur; Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the order. [ 50 Misc.2d 897.]