People v. W.

Decision Date04 June 1969
Citation302 N.Y.S.2d 260,24 N.Y.2d 732,249 N.E.2d 882
Parties, 249 N.E.2d 882 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald W. (Anonymous), Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Matthew Muraskin, Mineola, for appellant.

William Cahn, Dist. Atty. (Henry P. De Vine, Mineola, of counsel), for respondent.

JASEN, Judge.

On January 26, 1966 appellate was indicted for third-degree burglary and first-degree grand larceny in connection with a safe burglary. Following his plea of guilty, he was adjudged a youthful offender and was placed on probation. The conditions of his probation required him to report to and remain in contact with his probation officer, to answer all reasonable inquiries of his probation officer, to abstain from the use of intoxicants and narcotics, to avoid persons of disreputable or harmful character, and to complete his education.

On July 19, 1967 (not his usual reporting day), appellant appeared at the Nassau County Probation Department office in the company of another man. He told his probation officer that his companion, Lawrence Miller, desired help with a narcotics problem. While appellate was standing in the hallway, his probation officer noticed needle marks on appellant's arm and requested him to step into an office. There, appellant was questioned by his probation officer about the needle marks in the presence of two other probation officers and his companion, Lawrence Miller. Appellant initially hesitated to answer any questions, but eventually admitted that he and Miller had purchased and taken heroin on July 17.

Subsequently, an information was filed charging appellant with violating his probation. Following a hearing at which he was represented by counsel, appellant was found to have violated the terms of his probation. His probation was revoked and he was committed to the Elmira Reception Center.

The principal question presented on this appeal is whether a probationer must receive the four-fold warnings announced in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, prior to being questioned by a probation officer.

It is conceded that the appellant was never given the Miranda warnings when questioned about the needle marks. Additionally, it may be assumed that appellant would have been restrained had he attempted to leave the room where he was being questioned.

Section 937 of the Code of Criminal Procedure authorizes a probation officer to 'require such reports by probationers as are reasonable or necessary.' Additionally, an express requirement of appellant's probation was that he answer all reasonable inquiries of his probation officer.

When the probation officer observed the needle marks on appellant's arm, he surmised that not only Miller needed help but the appellant as well. Accordingly, he proceeded to discharge his statutory duty 'to aid and encourage (appellant) by friendly advice and admonitions; and by such other measures as may seem most suitable to bring about improvement in his conduct, condition and general attitude toward society.' (Code Crim.Pro. § 936.)

Viewed in this persepective, it is appearent that the probation officers were not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Minnesota v. Murphy
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • February 22, 1984
    ...Rea, 678 F.2d 382, 390 (CA2 1982); People v. Ronald W., 31 App.Div.2d 163, 165, 295 N.Y.S.2d 767, 769 (1968), aff'd, 24 N.Y.2d 732, 249 N.E.2d 882, 302 N.Y.S.2d 260 (1969); Hughes v. Gwinn, W.Va., 290 S.E.2d 5, 7 (1981). 4. Compare, e.g., United States v. Steele, 419 F.Supp. 1385, 1386-1387......
  • Hughes v. Gwinn
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1982
    ...E.g., People v. Knight, 75 Ill.2d 291, 26 Ill.Dec. 699, 388 N.E.2d 414 (1979); State v. Generoso, supra. People v. W., 24 N.Y.2d 732, 249 N.E.2d 882, 302 N.Y.S.2d 260 (1969); Annot., 77 A.L.R.3d 669 (1977). It may also be acknowledged that Miranda has never been held to apply to all interro......
  • State v. Roberts
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • September 2, 1987
    ...Most of these cases turn on whether a probation officer is a "law enforcement officer" under Miranda. 4 In People v. Ronald W. (1969), 24 N.Y.2d 732, 302 N.Y.S.2d 260, 249 N.E.2d 882, the court determined that although " * * * a probation officer is a 'peace officer' * * * he is not a 'law ......
  • Stanley C., Matter of
    • United States
    • New York Family Court
    • June 30, 1983
    ...the parolee's statements may be used against him within the parole system (e.g., at a revocation proceeding) (People v. Ronald W, 24 NY2d 732, 302 N.Y.S.2d 260, 249 N.E.2d 882; People v. Parker, 82 A.D.2d 661, 666, 442 N.Y.S.2d 803, affd. 57 N.Y.2d 815, 455 N.Y.S.2d 600, 441 N.E.2d 1118).7 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT