People v. Lopez
| Decision Date | 10 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2014–283.,2014–283. |
| Citation | 22 N.Y.S.3d 138 (Table) |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, v. Angel LOPEZ, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Alan McGeorge, Esq., Attorney for Defendant.
Thomas P. Zugibe, Esq., District Attorney, Rockland County, Anthony R. Dellicarri, Superv. ADA.
By Indictment Number 2014–283, a Rockland County Grand Jury charged defendant with one count each of Grand Larceny in the Third Degree (P.L. § 155.35[1] )(Count I), Auto Stripping in the Second Degree (P.L. § 165.10[2] ) (Count II), and Criminal Trespass in the Third Degree (P.L. § 140.10[a] )(Count IV), and two counts of Criminal Mischief in the Second Degree (P.L. § 145.10)(Counts III and V). The charges arise out of two separate incidents in the Town of Clarkstown ("Clarkstown"), New York. Counts I through IV pertain to an incident that took place on May 12–13, 2013 whereby defendant is alleged to have broken through a fence at a Tarrytown Honda new car storage lot in Clarkstown and stole rims, tires and wheels from more than 13 cars. Count V pertains to an incident that took place on October 6–7, 2013, at the same car lot whereby defendant is accused of damaging the security system.
In accordance with a Decision and Order dated January 12, 2015, this Court conducted a Huntley hearing which took place on March 9, April 15, April 16, June 1, and August 6, 2015.1 The People called numerous witnesses, all of whom are law enforcement officers from various departments, to testify at the hearing on their direct case.
Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Section 710.60(6), the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact:
On the evening of November 24, 2013, Police Officer John Paul Lara of the Town of Greenburgh Police Department was dispatched to a new car storage lot at 450 Saw Mill River Road in the Town of Greenburgh. Upon his arrival, Lara spoke with the lot security officer, Adnan Chaudhry, who advised him that a vehicle that was positioned in a specific spot—to prevent other cars from entering the lot—had been moved. Lara looked at the moved vehicle, observed minor damage on its side, and then walked further into the lot. While canvassing the lot, Lara saw a white minivan parked in between some Acuras. Lara looked into the minivan and, although he did not see any occupants, he saw approximately ten rims and tires in the minivan. As he walked around, Lara noticed numerous Acuras with their rims and tires removed perched on milk crates. One of the Acuras had a floor jack lifting it up and in close proximity, Lara saw a drill laying on the trunk of another car. Lara contacted the dispatcher and requested that additional units respond in order to guard the perimeter of the lot. As Lara continued his canvass, he discovered an individual later identified as the defendant hiding behind a vehicle. Lara approached defendant, handcuffed him, and told him he was being detained. Lara then asked defendant why he was in the lot. In response, defendant told Lara he was "taking rims" (Statement No. 1). Defendant was subsequently taken to the Town of Greenburgh Police Department.
At the police station, at approximately 2:30 a.m. on November 25, 2013, Detective Perie Miranda met with defendant, who was no longer handcuffed, in the interview room. Prior to speaking with him, Miranda offered defendant something to eat and drink and gave him the opportunity to use the bathroom. Miranda then, using a pre-printed form, advised defendant of his Miranda rights. See, People's Exhibits 3 and 4. Specifically, Miranda read all of the five "rights" to defendant and defendant placed his initials after each "right," except the warning stating that he had the right to remain silent, indicating that he understood each right. Miranda read the "waiver" near the bottom of the form where defendant signed his name, again indicating that he understood his rights, waived them, and agreed to speak to Detective Miranda. Once defendant signed the Miranda form, Miranda interviewed defendant. The entire interview and administration of Miranda warnings, which lasted for about 30 to 45 minutes, was audio and video recorded (Statement No. 2). See, People's Exhibit 4.
Later on that morning, on November 25, 2013 at approximately 10:45 a.m., defendant was interviewed a second time in the interview room at the Greenburgh Police Department, which was also audio and video recorded (Statement No. 3). See, People's Exhibit 5. Aside from defendant, members of several law enforcement agencies attended: Detective Rudy Uhlitzsch, a detective with the Town of Greenburgh Police Department who was assigned to investigate the crime that occurred the night before; Investigator Daniel Green, an investigator with the Auto Theft Unit of the New York State Police who had been investigating stolen rim and tire cases in the Bronx, Rockland County and areas further north; and Detective Roger Banash, a detective with the Auto Crime Unit of the Yonkers Police Department who had been working with detectives from other jurisdictions investigating these types of crimes.2
As with the earlier interview, defendant was not handcuffed and was offered food and drink. Defendant was very cooperative and provided detailed information regarding his criminal activities in connection with stolen rims and tires. Defendant was questioned about his potential involvement in the Clarkstown incidents due to their similarity to the Greenburgh incident, as well as other thefts in Yonkers, White Plains and elsewhere. Due to the fact that Detective Uhlitzsch had been made aware that defendant had been advised of his Miranda rights earlier that morning, and Uhlitzsch had informed the other investigators of that fact, defendant was not advised of his Miranda rights a second time prior to their speaking with him.
On April 1, 2014, defendant was present in the Town of Greenburgh Justice Court for a scheduled court appearance with respect to the charges arising out of the November 24, 2013 incident.3 While there, defendant was arrested by Detective Peter Monroe of the Town of Clarkstown Police Department for the crimes that are the subject of the within indictment.4 Detective Monroe brought defendant to the Town of Clarkstown police station. In the detective bureau interview room, Detective Monroe and Detective Frederick Parent took an audio/video recorded statement from defendant. See, People's Exhibit 7. Prior to speaking with defendant, Detective Monroe, using a pre-printed form, advised defendant of his Miranda warnings. Specifically, Detective Monroe read each of the five warnings out loud, one at a time, to defendant and after reading each one, defendant indicated that he understood the right that had just been read. To further indicate his understanding, defendant placed his initials at the end of each sentence. Detective Monroe then read aloud the acknowledgment that states that defendant understood his rights and was willing to waive them. Defendant signed the acknowledgment and waiver and agreed to speak with the detectives. See, People's Exhibits 6 and 7. Defendant then proceeded to provide a statement to the detectives regarding his involvement in the Clarkstown incidents, as well as his involvement in the case pending in the Town of Greenburgh Justice Court (Statement No. 4).
Conclusions of Law:
Defendant contends that the three statements for which the People provided notice pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Section 710.30 must be suppressed on the ground that such statements were involuntarily made. Specifically, defendant argues that the statement he made to PO Lara in the lot (Statement No. 1) should be suppressed as it was the product of a custodial interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings. Defendant next contends that the second statement taken at the Town of Greenburgh Police Department (Statement No. 3) must also be suppressed as it also was the product of a custodial interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings. Defendant also asserts that such statement should be suppressed on the ground that the police unnecessarily delayed his arraignment in order to obtain an involuntary confession. Lastly, with respect to the videotaped statement taken at the Town of Clarkstown Police Department (Statement No. 4), defendant contends that suppression is required due to the fact that he was represented by counsel on the Westchester charges and therefore, could not waive his Miranda rights and be questioned on related charges without counsel present. With respect to the statement to Detective Miranda, which the People seek to introduce solely to establish that defendant had been advised of his Miranda rights (Statement No. 2), defendant moves to preclude such evidence on the ground that the People failed to provide notice of such statement in violation of C.P.L. § 710.30. In the event preclusion is denied, defendant argues that it must be suppressed.
As hereinafter set forth, the Court grants in part and denies in part defendant's motion as follows:
A statement is "involuntarily made" by a defendant when it is obtained (1) by the use or threatened use of physical force or other improper means; (2) by means of any promises made to defendant which creates a substantial risk that defendant might falsely incriminate himself; or (3) in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. C.P.L. § 60.45(2). See also, People v. Rodney, 85 N.Y.2d 289 (1995). The burden of proving the voluntariness of defendant's statements is on the People and such must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. See, People v. Witherspoon, 66 N.Y.2d 973 (1983) ; People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 78 (1965). As applied here, defendant contends that his statements were involuntarily made as they were obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.
Turning first to defendant's statement to PO Lara in the lot (Statement No. 1), defendant contends that such statement was...
To continue reading
Request your trial