People v Negron

[*1] People v Negron 2005 NY Slip Op 50043(U) Decided on January 7, 2005 County Court, Monroe County Connell, J. 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 January 7, 2005
County Court, Monroe County

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

against

JUAN NEGRON



2004-0867



STEPHEN MILLER, ESQ.

Assistant District Attorney

for the People

ANNE BURGER, ESQ.

Assistant Public Defender

for the Defendant

John J. Connell, J.

The defendant, claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful or improper acquisition of evidence, has moved to suppress a statement made by him on August 3, 2004 to members of the Rochester Police Department on the ground that it was involuntarily made within the meaning of CPL §60.45. A confession or admission is admissible at trial in New York State only if its voluntariness is established by the People beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Yarter, 41 NY2d 830, cert. denied, 433 US 910; People v. Valerius, 3l NY2d 5l). The defendant also claims that the police lacked probable cause to place him under arrest. A pre-trial suppression hearing was conducted before me on these issues on November 17, 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

On August 3, 2004, Rochester Police Officer William Jeroy responded to a burglary alarm call at 11:56 a.m. at 451 Bernard Street in the City of Rochester. He arrived at that location within a couple minutes and noticed an open window with a torn screen. Shortly after his arrival Officer Brian Cannon of the Rochester Police Department also arrived. Officer Cannon saw the defendant standing at the threshold of the front door way, and told him that his alarm was going off. The defendant responded that the officer should be quiet, because his mother was sleeping inside. He refused to give the officer any identification. Neighbors were yelling to both officers that the defendant did not live there. The defendant was sweating profusely. Another neighbor yelled out to Officer Jeroy that the homeowners were not home.

The defendant spoke with a thick Spanish accent and appeared very nervous. Officer Cannon handcuffed the defendant, and brought him to his patrol car. The officer patted down the defendant for weapons and found a large bulge in the front jeans pocket. The officer removed a cell phone, jewelry, hypodermic needle, candy, and money. Several residents in the area approached the officer and told him that they did not know the defendant.

The defendant was transported to the Public Safety Building's fourth floor and placed in an interview room. Investigator James Woodward of the Rochester Police Department entered that room to question the defendant. He realized that there was a language barrier so he sought the assistance of Rochester Police Officer Velasquez, who is a Spanish-speaking officer. [*2]

Officer Velasquez advised the defendant of his Miranda warnings by reading verbatim from People's Exhibit 2A which was received in evidence. The warnings were read in Spanish. The defendant indicated that he understood those warnings and agreed to speak with the officers about the incident. Thereafter Investigator Woodward and Officer Velasquez questioned the defendant in Spanish and obtained oral statements, which were later reduced to writing and received as People's Exhibit 1 in evidence. That statement is in English and was translated into Spanish to the defendant before he acknowledged its truthfulness and accuracy.

No threats or promises were made to the defendant to induce him to speak with the officers. At no time did he assert his right to an attorney nor ask that the interview cease.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The police were responding to a burglary alarm at a home. The observations of the open window on torn screen coupled with the statements of the neighbors that the defendant did not belong in the home and that the homeowners were not there gave the police sufficient grounds to further question the defendant about his identity. His refusal to identify himself to the police, coupled with the information the police had from their own observations and the statements of bystanders, justified their taking the defendant into custody.

The defendant was properly advised of his Miranda warnings and made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of those warnings. The People sustained their burden of establishing that the statements attributed to the defendant were taken voluntarily beyond a reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion to suppress the statements attributed to the defendant is in all respects denied.

Signed this 7th day of January, 2005 at Rochester, New York.

JOHN J. CONNELL

County Court Judge