Opinion
November 24, 1986
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Boklan, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that his statements should have been suppressed because the police allegedly placed him in custody without probable cause in order to question him. The record unequivocally establishes, and the hearing court found, that the defendant voluntarily consented to accompany the detectives to the precinct. Indeed, the record is barren of any indication that the police used force, threats or intimidation to coerce the defendant into accompanying them, and he was neither handcuffed nor restrained in any manner. Additionally, while at the precinct, the defendant was informed that if he chose not to talk to the officers but was subsequently found to have been involved in the crime, he would be taken into custody at a later date. Under these circumstances, the defendant was not in police custody at the time he made the challenged statements (see, e.g., People v Quartararo, 113 A.D.2d 845; People v Baird, 111 A.D.2d 1044; People v Villeroel, 106 A.D.2d 481; People v Mertens, 97 A.D.2d 595; People v Bryant, 71 A.D.2d 564, affd 50 N.Y.2d 949, cert denied 449 U.S. 958).
In any event, the hearing court correctly concluded that the detectives had probable cause to arrest the defendant, had they been so inclined, based upon their prior receipt of a written and sworn statement from a citizen informant who was reliable and which indicated that the defendant had criminally possessed stolen property (see generally, People v Johnson, 66 N.Y.2d 398; People v Marcus, 123 A.D.2d 788; People v Inman, 80 A.D.2d 622; People v Seppinni, 77 A.D.2d 852, appeal dismissed 54 N.Y.2d 625).
Furthermore, the defendant's contentions concerning the issue of consensual police entry upon his premises are not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, e.g., People v Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011; People v Carolina, 112 A.D.2d 244). Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.