People v. Jansson

• Decision Date: 29 May 2003
• Citation: 760 N.Y.S.2d 259,305 A.D.2d 942
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>DAVID JANSSON, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

305 A.D.2d 942

760 N.Y.S.2d 259

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v.DAVID JANSSON, Appellant.

Carpinello, J.

Decided May 29, 2003.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III and Rose, JJ., concur.

Carpinello, J.

In satisfaction of a 33-count indictment charging him with various sex-related offenses, defendant pleaded guilty to sodomy in the first degree, based on allegations that he had engaged in deviate sexual intercourse with a preschool-aged girl,^[1] and course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, based on allegations that he had engaged in numerous acts of inappropriate sexual contact with an 11-year-old girl. The plea was entered into by defendant with the understanding that the recommended sentence would be concurrent 20-year prison terms. Sentenced accordingly, defendant now appeals.

We are unpersuaded by defendant's claim that County Court erred in denying a motion to suppress his written statement to police on the ground that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him. At the Huntley hearing, it was established that the younger of defendant's two victims (see n 1, supra) gave an oral statement to State Police Investigator Mary DeSantis on the evening of December 2, 2001 detailing acts of sexual contact between herself and defendant during the previous 24-hour period. In addition to interviewing the victim at this time, DeSantis also interviewed her aunt, to whom the sexual activity had been disclosed, and her mother.

Shortly after interviewing the victim, DeSantis discussed the matter with her superior, State Police Senior Investigator Thomas Aiken, who proceeded to the home of defendant's brother to question defendant.^[2] While en route, Aiken was advised that defendant had just left the residence and was traveling in a specific direction on a specific roadway. At Aiken's direction, another state trooper followed defendant a short distance and then proceeded to pull him over by activating his emergency lights. Aiken arrived within seconds, informed defendant that he "had some serious things" to talk to him about and inquired if defendant would be willing to accompany him to his "office." Defendant agreed, accompanied Aiken to a nearby State Police barracks and, thereafter, upon waiving Miranda rights, gave a detailed, written statement confessing to many instances of sexual contact with the victims.

The trooper who pulled defendant over was justified in doing so even though defendant had not been observed committing any Vehicle and Traffic Law violation, as the accusations leveled against him by the youngest victim most assuredly supplied the police with probable cause to arrest (see People v Berzups, 49 NY2d 417, 427 [1980]; People v Leath, 273 AD2d 410, 411 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 891 [2000]; People v Green, 154 AD2d 548 [1989], lv denied 74 NY2d 948 [1989]; see also People v Robinson, 97 NY2d 341 [2001]; People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 422 [1985]). That the police may have delayed in obtaining an arrest warrant so as to question defendant in the absence of counsel does not mandate suppression of his statement (see People v Anderson, 290 AD2d 658, 658-659 [2002], lv denied 97 NY2d 750 [2002]; People v Wheeler, 227 AD2d 980 [1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 1025 [1996]; People v Counts, 214 AD2d 897 [1995], lvs denied 86 NY2d 792, 800 [1995]). Finally, the Huntley hearing testimony confirms that defendant voluntarily accompanied Aiken to the barracks, that he was not physically restrained at any time and that he knowingly waived his Miranda rights and agreed to speak with Aiken in the absence of counsel. In a nonconfrontational setting, defendant readily admitted to the younger victim's allegations of sexual contact and also sua sponte offered up his inappropriate conduct with the older victim. Under these circumstances, we are unpersuaded by the claim that this statement was taken in violation of any constitutional rights (see People v Johnston, 273 AD2d 514, 515 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 935...