People v. Jones

• Decision Date: 03 July 1979
• Citation: 47 N.Y.2d 528,393 N.E.2d 443,419 N.Y.S.2d 447
• Parties: , 393 N.E.2d 443 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Dave R. JONES, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 447

419 N.Y.S.2d 447

47 N.Y.2d 528, 393 N.E.2d 443

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Dave R. JONES, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 3, 1979.

Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty. (Shulamit Rosenblum and William C. Donnino, Mineola, of counsel), for appellant

Howard B. Comet, Matthew Muraskin and Michael J. Obus, Mineola, for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

WACHTLER, Judge.

The question on this appeal concerns the admissibility of a confession obtained without Miranda ¹ warnings by private store detectives who took the defendant into custody, with assistance from county police officers, and questioned him in the store's security office while the police officers waited outside. The County Court held the statement was admissible and, following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree. But a majority at the Appellate Division reversed, suppressed the confession and ordered a new trial (61 A.D.2d 264, 402 N.Y.S.2d 28). The prosecutor now appeals to our court.

On the afternoon of August 28, 1975 two Nassau County police officers, who were assigned to patrol a Valley Stream shopping center in plainclothes, entered Gimbel's Department Store. They were informed by the store's security personnel that a man was then under observation in the men's clothing department. Security officers in the men's department pointed out the defendant to the police but indicated that they did not "have anything yet". The police officers watched the defendant for 5 or 10 minutes without incident and then left the store.

Soon after the defendant took a pair of wire clippers, cut the chains that ran through the sleeves of six leather coats, placed the coats in a plastic bag and proceeded to leave the store. This was observed by members of the store's security staff who followed the defendant while one of the security guards went to find the police officers. The guard informed the police officers that store personnel were about to stop someone and that their assistance was needed.

The defendant was stopped outside the store by security officers who identified themselves and took the coats. When the police arrived one of the security officers was holding the defendant against the wall attempting to handcuff him. As the defendant stepped away from the wall one of the police officers placed his hand on the defendant's shoulder, showed the defendant his badge, identified himself as a police officer and told the defendant to stand there or keep his hands on the wall. The defendant was then handcuffed and brought back to the store's security office by the police and the store personnel. The policemen left the defendant at the security office and waited outside the door while the store detectives questioned him. This apparently was the "normal procedure".

Inside the office the defendant was handcuffed to a desk, by one hand, and was asked to sign various items by the security officers. He was given a form confession with his name, address, a description of the stolen property and the date added and was asked to sign it if he understood it. He signed this form and another one by which he agreed not to enter the store for a three-year period. He also signed photographs of the stolen coats and the wire clippers. When this paper work was completed, the store detectives turned the defendant over to the police officers for criminal prosecution. It is conceded that neither the police nor the store detectives had previously informed the defendant that he had a right to remain silent or to consult with an attorney.

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, the Supreme Court held that "the prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination." The court defined custodial interrogation as "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way." The People contend that in this case it was not necessary to advise the defendant of his rights or to employ other procedural safeguards because the defendant was taken into custody and questioned by private store detectives, and not by police officers.

By statute, store detectives and other employees of retail stores are empowered to arrest or detain individuals suspected of shoplifting (General Business Law, § 218). Like police officers they are relieved of civil liability for false arrest if they can show reasonable grounds for the suspicion (Jacques v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 30 N.Y.2d 466, 334 N.Y.S.2d 632, 285 N.E.2d 871). Nevertheless in exercising this authority store employees are generally held to act as private individuals and not as police officers or State officials (People v. Horman, 22 N.Y.2d 378, 292 N.Y.S.2d 874, 239 N.E.2d 625; but see People v. Smith, 82 Misc.2d 204, 368 N.Y.S.2d 954, holding that store detectives in New York City who are appointed by municipal officials as "special patrolmen" are governmental agents for Fourth Amendment purposes).

It is settled that an unauthorized search or seizure by private individuals, including store detectives, does not render the evidence inadmissible at subsequent civil or criminal proceedings (Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048; Sackler v. Sackler, 15 N.Y.2d 40, 255 N.Y.S.2d 83, 203 N.E.2d 481; People v. Horman, 22 N.Y.2d 378, 292 N.Y.S.2d 874, 239 N.E.2d 625, Supra; People v. Gleeson, 36 N.Y.2d 462, 369 N.Y.S.2d 113, 330 N.E.2d 72). This is so, the cases hold, because the Fourth Amendment is meant to regulate government activity; the unauthorized act of a private person does not violate the constitutional...