People v Tomaszewski

[*1] People v Tomaszewski 2022 NY Slip Op 51410(U) Decided on February 12, 2022 County Court, Genesee County Cianfrini, 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 This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.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 February 12, 2022
County Court, Genesee County

The People of the State of New York,

against

Charles Tomaszewski, Defendant.



Indictment No. 70338-21/001



Joseph Robinson, Esq., Genesee County District Attorney's Office

John D'Arpino, Esq., Attorney for Defendant
Melissa Lightcap Cianfrini, J.

The Defendant, Charles Tomaszewski, claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful or improper acquisition of evidence, has moved to suppress statements made by him on April 15, 2021, to Batavia Police Officer, Felicia DeGroot on the ground that they were involuntarily made within the meaning of CPL 60.45. A hearing was conducted on January 28, 2022.

FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The People called one witness during the hearing, Batavia Police Department Officer Felicia DeGroot. During the hearing, the Court admitted into evidence a recording consisting of Officer DeGroot's body worn camera footage marked as Exhibit A. There was no objection by the Defendant to the admission of Exhibit A, which contains a recording of the telephone conversation between Officer DeGroot and Defendant that lasts approximately 4 minutes in length. The Court has reviewed Exhibit A in its entirety.

The credible testimony at the hearing revealed that at approximately April 15, 2021, the Defendant was contacted via telephone by Officer DeGroot. He was not in custody for purposes of the administration of Miranda Warnings and thus was not subject to a custodial interrogation.

An admission is admissible at trial in this state only if its voluntariness is established by the People beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden is on the People to establish that the Defendant made a voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of his rights to the police or, in the alternative, that the statements made were spontaneous and not in response to police questioning.

The Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has produced credible, trustworthy evidence and has sustained the burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements and admissions made by the defendant were voluntary, within the meaning of CPL 60.45. No force, duress or promises were made to the Defendant to induce the statements and admissions. [*2]They were either spontaneous or in response to non-custodial informational questioning. The Defendant did not request counsel at anytime. The People have established beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were lawfully obtained.

Defendant's motion to suppress the statements is DENIED. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.

Dated: February 12, 2022

Hon. Melissa Lightcap Cianfrini