People v. Oramus

• Decision Date: 01 July 1969
• Citation: 25 N.Y.2d 825,303 N.Y.S.2d 679,250 N.E.2d 723
• Parties: , 250 N.E.2d 723 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Angelo W. ORAMUS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 679

303 N.Y.S.2d 679

25 N.Y.2d 825, 250 N.E.2d 723

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Angelo W. ORAMUS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 1, 1969.

Julia P. Heit and Milton Adler, New York City, for appellant.

Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty. (Harry Brodbar, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.

MEMORANDUM.

Judgment reversed and case remitted to the Criminal Court of the City of New York for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.

The testimony of the arresting detective, the sole witness at the suppression hearing, established that the eyedropper and hypodermic needle were seized as the direct result of admissions obtained during custodial interrogation which was not preceded by warnings mandated by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694.

The detective testified that defendant had taken his girl friend, critically ill from an overdose of narcotics, to the hospital. He was brought in a patrol car from the hospital to the station house 'for his identification.'

Upon questioning at the station house the defendant told the detective that 'he and this girl * * * and a fellow * * * had shot up three bags of heroin * * * and he advised her not to take any more. * * * (S)he did take (more) while he want (sic) to get a pack of cigarettes. When he came back, she was unconscious. He said he slapped her face and tried to bring her to, and couldn't. He flagged down an automobile and accompanied her to Methodist Hospital where she was admitted.'

The detective continued: 'I ask him if he had the works. He said yes he had the works either on the shelf in the closet in his furnished room, or behind a mirror. I asked if he would take me to them, and he said yes.'

The detective accompanied defendant to the apartment where the eyedropper and hypodermic needle were seized, and defendant arrested. He was then given Miranda warnings.

The People contend that the investigation was confined to defendant's girl friend, that the defendant was questioned as an ordinary witness, and that he did not become a 'target' until the discovery of the contraband.

It is patent from the record, however, that from the onset defendant was, and must have been, a prime suspect and was, therefore, questioned in the custodial atmosphere of the station house and that he admitted that he, as well as his girl friend, had been taking narcotics. Only after this incriminating admission was he asked if he had 'the...