Opinion
2009SU005953.
Decided February 4, 2011.
Scott A. Koltun, Frankfort Koltun, Deer Park, NY, for the Defendant.
A.D.A. Maggie Bopp, for Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney of Suffolk County, Central Islip, NY, for the People.
The defendant herein is charged with one Count of Public Lewdness. (PL § 245.00).
A Huntley / Wade hearing was conducted on January 25, 2011 before this Court to determine admissibility of statements made by defendant to detectives and whether the photo array shown to the complaining witness was unduly suggestive. People v. Huntley, 15 NY2d 72 (1965); US v. Wade, 388 US 218, 87 S.Ct. 1928, 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967). The Huntley portion of the hearing concerned statements made to detectives prior to the defendant's arrest, and the Wade portion concerned a photo array shown to the complaining witness.
The People called one witness, Suffolk County Police Detective John Vohs, a 23-year member of the Suffolk County Police Department. Based on his testimony, this Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Detective Vohs' testimony is credible. He testified that on January 26, 2009 he became involved in the investigation of a claim of public lewdness at Lt. Murphy Park in Brookhaven which allegedly occurred @ 1430 hours on the 26th. The complaining witness, a Ms. Arlene Wehr, advised SCPD that while in her car, at Lt. Michael Murphy Park, she had observed an individual expose his penis and masturbate, as he sat in his car. Based on defendant's license plate "2 sweet G" and Ms. Wehr's statement, Detective Vohs developed a suspect, defendant Griffin.
On January 27, 2009, using defendant's picture and a computerized system, Detective Vohs put together a photo array of black males in their 30's — 40's, including the defendant. The defendant was born in 1964 and was 45 at the time of his arrest. After advising Ms. Wehr that the defendant may or may not be among the photos, Detective Vohs showed the array to Ms. Wehr and she picked out defendant Griffin. The detective described the identification as "the fasted ID I've ever seen".
Page 2
Then on February 4, 2009 Detective Vohs and his partner Detective Regensburg proceeded to defendant's residence in Coram NY Upon their arrival, defendant was home. They asked if defendant would speak with them, and he invited them in. Detectives advised they were investigating an incident occurring January 26, 2009 at 2:30 pm at Lt. Murphy Park and that he had been identified. Defendant stated, "I knew she was going to say something, how could she pick me out, I had tinted windows". The approximate time of the statement was 12:25 pm. While the detectives were speaking with defendant, his daughter came home. Detective Vohs stated that Mr. Griffin appeared embarrassed and did not want to continue the conversation inside the house. The detectives proceeded outside the residence where they continued to discuss the incident. They subsequently arrested Mr. Griffin.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Photo Array
The Court has reviewed the photo array and examined all six (6) photographs. The six photographs show individuals who share similar characteristics to the defendant herein. Additionally, the Court finds that the observer's attention is not particularly drawn to the defendant. As to any difference in age suggested by defense counsel, at least one of the individuals appears slightly older than the defendant. See People v. Parker, 257 AD2d 693, 684 N.Y.S. 2d 300 (3d Dept 1999), lv. den. 93 NY2d 1024, 697 N.Y.S.2d 583 (1999).
This Court holds that there was nothing unduly suggestive regarding the photo array or the manner in which Detective Vohs presented the photo array to the complaining witness. The People have satisfactorily established the reasonableness of police conduct and the lack of any suggestiveness in the photo array. People v. Douglas, 306 AD2d 696, 760 N.Y.S. 2d 373 (3rd Dept. 2003). Defendant's motion to suppress the identification of the defendant is therefore denied.
The Statement
Prior to being placed under arrest, the defendant invited the detectives into his residence, and in response to the detective explaining why they were there, the defendant made his statement. The defendant was not in custody and his response was spontaneous. See, e.g. People v. Rice , 24 Misc 3d 248 , 874 N.Y.S. 2d 769 (2009); see also People v. Brown, 295 AD2d 442, 743 N.Y.S. 2d 554 (2nd Dept. 2002), lv. app. den. 99 NY2d 580 (2003); People v. Johnson , 56 AD3d 268 , 866 N.Y.S. 2d 655 (1st Dept. 2008). It is the conclusion of this Court that the defendant's statement was spontaneous and voluntary without any threats or coercion by Detective Vohs. Defendant's motion to suppress the statement is denied.