People v Lee

[*1] People v Lee 2008 NY Slip Op 52237(U) [21 Misc 3d 1126(A)] [21 Misc 3d 1126(A)] Decided on November 6, 2008 Supreme Court, Kings County D'Emic, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 November 6, 2008
Supreme Court, Kings County

The People of the State of New York

against

Jahmeel Lee and Matthew Hester, Defendants.



1981-05



A P P E A R A N C E S:

Attorney for the People:

ADA Joseph Alexis

ADA Nicole Chavis

Kings County District Attorney's Office

350 Jay Street

Brooklyn, NY 11201

(718)-250-2000

Attorney for defendant Hester:

Martin Goldberg, Esq.

50 Court Street, Suite 702

Brooklyn, NY 11201

(516)-292-0380

Attorney for defendant Lee:

Guy Raimondi, Esq.

110 Wall Street, 11th Floor

New York, NY 10005

(212)-709-8063

Matthew J. D'Emic, J.

Defendants stand indicted for the murder of Claudia Hall, whose burned body was found in a dumpster at the corner of Livonia Avenue and Amboy Street on December 31, 2004. Defendants move to suppress their statements to the police on the ground that they did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waive their Miranda rights. Defendant Hester further argues that his statement should be suppressed as tainted by his illegal arrest. Testifying credibly at the hearing before the court were Detectives Jayne Jennings, John Bruton (retired) and Walter Mack (retired).

The motions are denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

After the discovery of Ms. Hall's body, Detective Jennings was assigned to investigate the case, assisted by Detectives Bruton and Mack. As part of the investigation, the police obtained the decedent's cell phone records and noted frequent calls between her and defendant Lee. In February 2005, an informant, Calvin Harris, gave information to the police that a woman named Shameeka Herron told him that she killed Ms. Hall in apartment 1R at 373 Amboy Street and that she had help cleaning the crime scene. On February 28, 2005, armed with information received from Mr. Harris, the police obtained a search warrant which was executed in the early afternoon of March 1st. Once inside the apartment, the detectives took three adults into custody: Shameeka Herron, Andrea Rahmings and the defendant Matthew Hester, who were taken to the 73rd Precinct for questioning.

At about 2:00 PM, after being given her rights, Shameeka Herron told the police that defendant Lee killed Ms. Hall and that defendant Hester helped Lee dispose of her body. About an hour later, after being advised of her rights, Andrea Rahmings implicated both defendants in the crime.

At about 5:00 PM, defendant Hester was read his Miranda warnings, which he initialed and signed. He stated that he knew nothing of these events and would not talk further, unless the detectives could guarantee his freedom. The interview ended and defendant Hester was arrested and placed in a precinct cell.

On March 2, 2005, at about 1:00 PM, Hester was printed by Detective Mack. During this process, while the two were conversing, Detective Mack warned him that when Lee was caught he might well blame the murder on him. Hester then asked to speak to Detective Jennings. Reminded that she had read him his rights the day before, Hester told the police that he helped Lee dispose of Ms. Hall's body. He later made a video statement to an assistant district attorney.

On March 17, 2005, as a result of an anonymous tip, defendant Lee was arrested. He was taken to the 73rd Precinct, where Detective Jennings read him his Miranda rights. Lee told her he understood his rights and initialed and signed the Miranda sheet.

Lee told the police that Hester killed Ms. Hall and he helped clean the scene and dispose of the body. He signed a written statement to that effect and, in addition, at about 12:20 PM on March 18, 2005, made an audio statement after being read his Miranda rights by an assistant district attorney.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

DEFENDANT LEE

The arrest of defendant Lee was made upon reasonable cause and lawful. By March 17, [*2]2005, three witnesses to the crime, Matthew Hester, Shameeka Herron and Andrea Rahmings had implicated Lee in Ms. Hall's murder. After his arrest, he received his rights which he indicated he understood. He was again read his rights on March 18, 2005 on audio tape, and again voiced his understanding of those rights. As such, his statements were made after he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently agreed to surrender his rights and they will not be suppressed.

DEFENDANT HESTER

The fact that the police had sufficient cause to obtain and execute a search warrant for apartment 1R at 373 Amboy Street does not translate to probable cause to arrest everyone in the apartment for a crime committed several weeks earlier. The police did have information that Shameeka Herron may have been involved and further, that Jahmeel Lee, also known as "Country," had bragged about the crime, as well as telephone records linking him to Ms. Hall. They did not, however, have any cause to link Hester to the crime. In other words, they knew of no facts and had no trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a belief that Hester was involved in the commission of the crime (Brinegar v United States, 338 US 160). The arrest, which in actuality occurred when Hester was taken into custody, was made without probable cause in violation of Hester's Fourth Amendment rights.

Nevertheless, Hester received and understood his Miranda rights which were read to him about four hours later, after he was implicated in the crime by Shameeka Herron and Andrea Rahmings. In addition, questioning stopped when he refused to make a statement and only resumed the next afternoon after he sought out Detective Jennings during his conversation with Detective Mack. While it is clear that the giving of Miranda warnings alone will not remove the taint of an illegal arrest, under the facts presented here "the causal connection between the statements and the illegal arrest is broken sufficiently to purge the primary taint of the illegal arrest in light of the distinct policies and interests of the Fourth Amendment" (Brown v Illinois, 422 US 590).

Within two hours of Hester's arrest, two known individuals implicated him in the crime. About four hours after his arrest he was given his rights and refused to speak to the police. About 18 hours later he was reminded of his rights and made admissions to the police. Surely these factors are sufficient to purge the taint of the unlawful arrest and defendant Hester's statements will not be suppressed (People v Thompson, 296 AD2d 513; People v Browser, 285 AD2d 609; People v Roman, 215 AD2d 697; People v Dyla, 142 AD2d 423).

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

____________________________

Matthew J. D'Emic

J.S.C.