People v Henriquez (Indira)

[*1] People v Henriquez (Indira) 2013 NY Slip Op 50579(U) Decided on April 11, 2013 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on April 11, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Torres, JJ
570805/10.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, - -

against

Indira Henriquez, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Matthew A. Sciarrino, Jr., J. at suppression hearing and jury trial), rendered September 13, 2010, convicting her of driving while intoxicated (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192[2]), and imposing sentence.

Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (Matthew A. Sciarrino, Jr., J. at suppression hearing and jury trial), rendered September 13, 2010, affirmed.

The court properly denied suppression of defendant's station house statements. Even assuming, as the suppression court found, that the brief roadside police inquiry of defendant as to whether she had been drinking and driving was custodial rather than investigatory in nature (but see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585, 589 [1969], cert denied 400 US 851 [1970], People v Brown, 92 AD3d 455, 455-456 [2012], lv denied 18 NY3d 955 [2012]), we sustain the court's ultimate determination that defendant's post-Miranda statements, given more than one hour later at the police precinct, were sufficiently attenuated from the initial, pre-Miranda statement(s) to be admissible. Considering, among other factors, the limited nature of the pre-Miranda police inquiry, the change in location of the questioning, and the passage of time between any Miranda violation that may have occurred immediately following the initial traffic stop and the post-Miranda, station house statements here in dispute, we agree that there was a definite and pronounced break in the questioning to warrant the admission of the Mirandized statements (see People v White, 10 NY3d 286, 292 [2008], cert denied 555 US 897 [2008]; People v Samuels, 11 AD3d 372, 372-373 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 802 [2005]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: April 11, 2013