People v. Richards
| Citation | 36 N.Y.S.3d 49 (Table) |
| Decision Date | 03 February 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 2015–174.,2015–174. |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Omar RICHARDS, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
David D. Narain, Esq., Michael E. Bongiorno, Esq., Attorneys for Defendant.
Thomas P. Zugibe, Esq., District Attorney, Rockland County, Attn: Jennifer S. Parietti, Superv. ADA.
Defendant is charged by the within indictment with one count of Rape in the First Degree (P.L. § 130.35[1] ), one count of Attempted Criminal Sexual Assault in the First Degree (P.L. §§ 110.00/130.50[1] ), and two counts of Sexual Abuse in the First Degree (P.L. § 130.65[1] ).1 By Decision and Order filed August 13, 2015, this Court ordered that combined Huntley/Rodriguez/Wade/Mapp hearings be held. On November 30, 2015, December 17, 2015 and December 21, 2015, said hearings were held before this Court in accordance with that decision. The People called NYPD Detectives Albert Ragsdale and Harish Mansharamani and Town of Ramapo Police Department Detectives Dennis Procter and Thomas Byrnes. Defendant did not present any witnesses.
Having reviewed the evidence and the arguments of counsel,2 and pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law Section 710.60(6), the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
I. Findings of Fact
On October 7, 2014, Detective Albert Ragsdale of the NYPD Special Victims Squad became involved in the investigation of a rape when officers from the Town of Greenburgh Police Department informed him of the allegations and brought the victim of the alleged rape (hereinafter referred to as “B.R.”) to speak with him. The Greenburgh police also provided Detective Ragsdale with a package of information containing the name of the alleged perpetrator, i.e., the defendant, and a color photograph of him.
Upon interviewing B.R. on that same date, Detective Ragsdale learned that B.R. had met the defendant, whom she knew as Omar or “Fly Boy,” approximately seven months before while she was working at Dunkin Donuts. At that time, defendant gave B.R. his Instagram information, which is the manner in which B.R. kept in contact with defendant during that seven-month period. On or before October 6, 2014, B.R. decided to “go out” with defendant and on that date, defendant picked B.R. up in a red, four-door truck and the two drove around, went to a park and then to a private house, where B.R. alleges the rape took place. During the time they were in the truck together, B.R. had consumed “a good amount of [Jack Daniels].” As part of his investigation, Detective Ragsdale showed B.R. a single photograph of defendant, the same photograph that was contained in the packet of information given to the detective by the Town of Greenburgh Police Department. See, People's Exhibit 1. B.R. identified the person in the photograph as defendant, the person she alleges raped her on October 6, 2014.3 Based on Detective Ragsdale's interview with B.R., Detective Ragsdale believed the rape occurred in the Bronx.
In furtherance of his investigation, Detective Ragsdale conducted computer checks of both defendant and B.R. and, on October 9, 2014, arranged for B.R. to make a controlled telephone call to defendant. The conversation between B.R. and defendant was audio recorded. See, People's Exhibit 2.
On November 18, 2014 at approximately 5:30 a.m., pursuant to an I-card issued by Detective Ragsdale, the Bronx Warrant squad arrested the defendant at his home at 27 Sneden Place in Spring Valley, New York.4 According to Detective Harish Mansharamani, who arrived at the Sneden Place address after defendant had already been arrested and had already been placed in the Warrant Squad van, defendant was arrested “without incident.” For the next three and one-half hours, with defendant riding in the back of the van, the Bronx Warrant Squad drove around looking to make additional arrests. Defendant was eventually brought to the Special Victims Squad office at approximately 9:00 a.m. where he met with Detective Ragsdale.5 After first introducing himself to defendant, Detective Ragsdale asked defendant if he knew B.R. When defendant answered in the affirmative, Detective Ragsdale then told defendant that B.R. had accused him of rape. In response, defendant stated that he wanted a lawyer. Defendant then admitted to Detective Ragsdale that he took B.R. to his house in Spring Valley but that once B.R. found out that defendant had a girlfriend, “she flipped out.” According to Detective Ragsdale, he never had the opportunity to read defendant his Miranda rights prior to the defendant's statement.
Upon learning from defendant that defendant took B.R. to his house in Spring Valley, Detective Ragsdale realized that the alleged rape did not take place in his jurisdiction. As a result, Detective Ragsdale voided defendant's arrest, released defendant from custody and contacted the Spring Valley Police Department and turned the investigation over to them.
On November 20, 2014, Detective Dennis Procter of the Town of Ramapo Police Department, after having been contacted by Detective Bookstein of the Village of Spring Valley Police Department, commenced an investigation regarding a sexual assault that may have taken place in the Town of Ramapo. Detective Procter had been advised by Detective Bookstein that a suspect had already been identified, namely the defendant.6
Treating the investigation as if no prior investigation had taken place, Detective Procter and Detective Bookstein drove to the Bronx and met with B.R. During their interview with B.R., B.R. provided the detectives with additional information regarding the defendant, specific details of the events that occurred, as well as a description of the places she went to the day of the incident. B.R. also reiterated much of the information she told to Detective Ragsdale. Based on their conversation, Detective Procter believed that B.R. described the Herb Reisman Sports Complex in the Town of Ramapo as the park where defendant took B.R. The detectives then drove B.R. with them to Rockland County where B.R. recognized the Herb Reisman Sports Complex as the park she went to with the defendant and 18 Harvey Court in Spring Valley as the house where the alleged rape took place. Both locations are situated in the Town of Ramapo.
Once the detectives acquired the information from B.R. regarding defendant's Instagram account, including a screen shot from defendant's Instagram page that B.R. e-mailed to Detective Procter, another member of the Town of Ramapo Police Department accessed defendant's Instagram account on the police department's computer at the request of Detective Procter. See, People's Exhibit 3.
After Detective Procter interviewed B.R. and pursuant to his request, Detective Thomas Byrnes prepared a photographic array for B .R. to view. Using the Web RICCI system, Detective Byrnes inputted defendant's name into the system and after retrieving defendant's image, Detective Byrnes set defendant as the suspect. Detective Byrnes then inputted characteristics such as defendant's hair color, height, weight and eye color and an array of six images was created. See, People's Exhibit 5. Detective Byrnes then read the photo array instructions to B.R. using a pre-printed form. See, People's Exhibit 4. After being read the instructions, B.R. initialed and dated the form indicating that she understood the instructions. Detective Byrnes next took the photo array out of a folder and showed it to B.R. Using another form, Detective Byrnes asked B.R. if she recognized anyone in the photo array. B.R. indicated that she did, selected photo number five and stated, “That's the person that raped me.” The person depicted in photo number five was the defendant. After B.R. identified the defendant, B.R. signed and dated the second form. See, People's Exhibit 4.
Just over a week later, on December 2, 2014, Detective Procter and two Ramapo patrol officers went to defendant's house at 27 Sneden Place in Spring Valley. Detective Procter knocked on the front door and moments later defendant opened the door. Defendant's girlfriend (presumably) was also present. After explaining to defendant that they needed to talk to him, defendant stepped out onto the front landing area where Detective Procter told defendant he was being arrested for rape. Since defendant was only wearing a t-shirt, sweatpants and socks, defendant's girlfriend retrieved some items that defendant needed, i.e., a jacket and shoes, as well as his cell phone. Defendant's cell phone was handed over to Detective Procter.
At the police station, defendant was read his Miranda rights at which time he stated he wanted an attorney. Defendant was then placed into a cell. When defendant asked to use his cell phone to make some phone calls, he was permitted to do so. Defendant was then processed on the arrest and arraigned. Detective Procter then placed defendant's cell phone in the property locker and subsequently obtained a search warrant to search the contents of the phone.7
Conclusions of Law:
A. Suppression of Statement (November 18, 2014 Arrest)
The Court will first address defendant's arguments that the statement defendant gave to Detective Ragsdale as a result of his November 18, 2014 arrest must be suppressed. Specifically, defendant contends that this statement must be suppressed on the grounds that: (1) the police violated defendant's Fourth Amendment right under Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), when they arrested him in his house without a warrant; and (2) the statement was involuntarily made in violation of Miranda v. Arizona and under the totality of the circumstances.
With respect to defendant's argument that his statement was the result of a warrantless arrest in violation of Payton v. New York, it is the People who bear the burden of proving that entry into the home was valid. See, People v. Nelson, 292 A.D.2d 397, 738 N.Y.S.2d 603 (2d Dept.2002) ; People v. Moore, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Appling v. City of N.Y.
...him in lieu of an arrest warrant signed by a judge after charges have been signed." People v. Richards, 36 N.Y.S.3d 49, 2016 WL 483220, at *2 n.4 (Sup. Ct. Feb. 3, 2016) (unpublished table decision); see also Keith v. City of New York, No. 11-CV-3577, 2014 WL 6750211, at *2 n.7 (S.D.N.Y. De......