People v. Misuis

• Decision Date: 09 July 1979
• Citation: 393 N.E.2d 1034,419 N.Y.S.2d 961,47 N.Y.2d 979
• Parties: , 393 N.E.2d 1034 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donald P. MISUIS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 961

419 N.Y.S.2d 961

47 N.Y.2d 979, 393 N.E.2d 1034

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Donald P. MISUIS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 9, 1979.

John J. Brunetti, George T. Dunn and Gerald T. Barth, Syracuse, for appellant

Richard A. Hennessy, Jr., Dist. Atty. (John A. Cirando and Edward Z. Menkin, Asst. Dist. Attys., of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed.

On November 21, 1976 two officers of the Syracuse Police Department responded to a radio call reporting that a child had been molested and directing them to the residence of the alleged victim. Upon arrival they spoke with both the alleged victim and her mother, and then proceeded directly to the home of the defendant where the officers informed him that his nine-year-old stepdaughter had accused him of rape. The defendant made no response and he was then advised of his rights, frisked, patted down and handcuffed. Upon arrival at police headquarters he was again informed of his rights, both orally and by being provided with a card reciting them. After having been given his Miranda warnings on three separate occasions and stating each time that he did not wish to have an attorney, the defendant made inculpatory admissions to the crime orally and in a signed statement.

At the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress these admissions, his counsel repeatedly attempted to interrogate the two officers in an effort to discover whether the police had probable cause to make the arrest. His avowed intention was to show that the detention was unlawful and thus any statements made as a result of the claimed unlawful arrest and detention tainted any admissions. However, at the insistent urging of the prosecutor the court refused to permit that inquiry and permitted only questions concerning the voluntariness of the statements themselves. The court found that the defendant had been given his Miranda warnings, had knowingly waived his right to the presence of any attorney, and had voluntarily confessed; and the court then denied the motion to suppress. Defendant then entered a plea of guilty to the crime of attempted rape in the first degree in full satisfaction of the indictment and promptly appealed from the order denying his motion to suppress the confessions.

Clearly, statements obtained by exploitation of unlawful police conduct or detention must be suppressed, for their use in evidence under such circumstance violates the Fourth Amendment (Dunaway v. New York,--- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 2248, 60 L.Ed.2d 824). ^* It is therefore " incumbent upon the suppression court to permit an inquiry into the propriety of the police conduct" (People v. Wise, 46 N.Y.2d 321, 329, 413 N.Y.S.2d 334, 339, 385 N.E.2d 1262, 1267). Unless the People establish that the police had probable cause to arrest or detain a suspect, and unless...