People v. Velazquez

Decision Date05 October 2006
Docket Number8609.
Citation822 N.Y.S.2d 65,33 A.D.3d 352,2006 NY Slip Op 07197
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERTO VELAZQUEZ, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

The evidence at the hearing on defendant's motion to suppress established that Detective Serrentino received a telephone call from defendant's wife, Maria Andrades, on the morning of March 16, 2001. After speaking with her, Detective Serrentino and his partner met with her outside her apartment on E. 137th Street in the Bronx. Andrades told the detectives that defendant had "committed some burglaries" and handed to them property that she said defendant had stolen during a recent burglary. During the approximately five hours the detectives spent with Andrades, she both informed them that additional stolen property was in the apartment she shared with the defendant on St. Ann's Avenue in the Bronx and told them "the story about the burglaries."

After arresting defendant on White Plains Road in the Bronx, the detectives brought him to the 24th Precinct stationhouse where defendant was advised of his Miranda rights. Defendant told the detectives he "didn't want to speak" and refused to waive his rights; interrogation then ceased. While processing defendant for arrest, the detectives recovered various items of property and a New York State "non-driver's license" identification card; the address printed on defendant's identification card was "137th Street in the Bronx."

Detective Serrentino began composing the on-line booking report by asking defendant the standard pedigree information. Although the identification card indicated that defendant's address was 137th Street in the Bronx, Detective Serrentino had been informed earlier by Andrades that she lived with defendant on St. Ann's Avenue. Accordingly, for "clarification," Detective Serrentino asked defendant where he lived. In response, defendant said he "rented a room with his wife, and that they live at 427 St. Ann's Avenue, apartment 3B," in the Bronx. Defendant also stated that the 137th Street address in the Bronx was his wife's "parents' home." Because the only address supported by physical proof was the 137th Street address, Detective Serrentino entered that address into the on-line booking report.*

Defendant's motion to suppress his statement that he lived with his wife at 427 St. Ann's Avenue properly was denied under the "pedigree exception," pursuant to which answers to questions reasonably related to police administrative concerns fall outside the protections of Miranda v Arizona (384 US 436 [1966]) (see Pennsylvania v Muniz, 496 US 582, 601-602 [1990]; People v Rodney, 85 NY2d 289, 292-293 [1995]). In Rhode Island v Innis (446 US 291 [1980]), the Supreme Court defined interrogation to "extend only to words or actions on the part of police officers that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response" (id. at 302). However, a question which falls within the scope of interrogation under Rhode Island v Innis does not for that reason fall outside the pedigree exception. As the People correctly argue, a contrary conclusion would preclude, for example, any pedigree questions relating to a suspect's physical features whenever a crime victim gave a description of the perpetrator to the police.

Thus, in People v Rodney, the Court emphasized that the pedigree question at issue "was not a disguised attempt at investigatory interrogation" (85 NY2d at 294), and cited cases in which questions eliciting information bearing directly on an essential element of the crime charged were held to fall outside the pedigree exception (id. at 293). Here, the address question is unquestionably a proper and standard subject of pedigree inquiry; the detective's contemporaneous conduct of entering...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Murden v. Artuz
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 10 Agosto 2007
    ...1149, 1149 (1978); see also People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 998, 457 N.Y.S.2d 238, 443 N.E.2d 486, 487 (1982); People v. Velazquez, 33 A.D.3d 352, 822 N.Y.S.2d 65, 67 (App. Div. 2006); People v. Daley, 31 A.D.3d 661, 818 N.Y.S.2d 300, 302 (App. Div. 2006); People v. Flagg, 30 A.D.3d 889, 819 N.Y.......
  • People v. Callicut
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 13 Diciembre 2012
    ...N.Y.2d at 293, 624 N.Y.S.2d 95, 648 N.E.2d 471;People v. Roberts, 63 A.D.3d 1294, 1296, 881 N.Y.S.2d 520 [2009];People v. Velazquez, 33 A.D.3d 352, 354, 822 N.Y.S.2d 65 [2006],lv. denied7 N.Y.3d 929, 827 N.Y.S.2d 698, 860 N.E.2d 1000 [2006] ). Defendant also argues that Supreme Court erred ......
  • People v. Velazquez
    • United States
    • New York Criminal Court
    • 6 Junio 2019
    ...in the notice ( People v. Cooper , 78 N.Y.2d 476, 577 N.Y.S.2d 202, 583 N.E.2d 915 [1991] ; see also People v. Velasquez , 33 A.D.2d 352, 822 N.Y.S.2d 65 [1st Dept. 2006] [defendant's statement introduced at trial was "substantially identical" to the noticed statement]; People v. Valdivia ,......
  • Velazquez v. Lape
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 9 Diciembre 2008
    ...a proper subject of pedigree inquiry and "was not a disguised attempt at an investigatory interrogation." People v. Velazquez, 33 A.D.3d 352, 353-54, 822 N.Y.S.2d 65 (1st Dept.1996). The words that appear in quotation marks are not meaningfully different from those that appear in footnote 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT