People v. McNeil
| Decision Date | 24 September 1984 |
| Citation | 480 N.Y.S.2d 39,104 A.D.2d 665 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Arthur McNEIL, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William E. Hellerstein, New York City (Robert E. Precht, New York City, of counsel), for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Gary S. Fidel, Asst. Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.
Before TITONE, J.P., and GIBBONS, BRACKEN, O'CONNOR and RUBIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered September 19, 1980, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant's motion to suppress statements made by him.
Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, motion to suppress statements granted, plea vacated, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings.
As defendant argues, and the People concede on appeal, defendant's arrest was made without probable cause. Moreover, we find that there were no intervening events between the illegal detention and the statements obtained which, by breaking the causal connection between them, purged the primary taint (see Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 102 S.Ct. 2664, 73 L.Ed.2d 314; Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416; People v. Butler, 80 A.D.2d 644, 436 N.Y.S.2d 76). Only 10 minutes elapsed between defendant's arrest and his first inculpatory statement, made upon his arrival at the precinct, during which time no significant intervening event occurred. His second statement, almost identical to the first, was made approximately two and a half hours later to an Assistant District Attorney. Again, no significant event occurred, and that statement was clearly a result of the first. Accordingly, we conclude that defendant's statements were the fruits of his illegal arrest, and must be suppressed.
TITONE, J.P., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment, with the following memorandum with which GIBBONS, J., concurs:
TITONE, J.P. (dissenting).
On September 17, 1979, Detective George Zicarelli of the Cleveland, Ohio Police Department was shot to death in the parking lot of a Queens motel. Five days later, defendant McNeil was arrested and, within minutes, admitted his involvement in the crime. Charged, along with two codefendants, with murder in the second degree, defendant sought to suppress all of his statements upon the ground that they were illegally obtained. Following a hearing, Criminal Term found that probable cause for defendant's arrest had been established and denied the motion. Defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree in satisfaction of the indictment.
On appeal, the People now purport to concede the absence of probable cause for defendant's arrest and rely solely on attenuation. I agree that this argument cannot be sustained, but would reject the concession, which is not binding on us (see People ex rel. Walker v. New York State Board of Parole, 98 A.D.2d 33, 35, 469 N.Y.S.2d 780 and the authorities cited therein), and affirm.
The standard applied in ascertaining the existence of probable cause to arrest is whether the facts and circumstances are such that a reasonable person...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Akwa
... ... No intervening events broke the causal chain of connection between the unlawful intrusion and the statement made by Brown at the precinct and consequently, that statement is suppressed. See Taylor v. Alabama, 457 U.S. 687, 102 S.Ct. 2664, 73 L.Ed.2d 314 (1982); People v. McNeil, 104 A.D.2d 665, 480 N.Y.S.2d 39 (2d Dept.1984) ... The discovery that these particular defendants were in possession of a car, later discovered to have been stolen, is no less the direct product of the stop of the car and the seizure of its occupants, than the more tangible items ... ...