Summary
The Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the defendant's convictions for robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and grand larceny in the fourth degree. The court upheld the denial of the motion to suppress, finding that police entered the apartment with valid consent, any potential Payton violation was sufficiently attenuated by the time and location of the arrest and interview, and the defendant's post-arrest statements were voluntary. While the admission of an unnoted photograph identification statement constituted harmless error, the court found no basis to reduce the sentence or review unpreserved challenges to the search warrant and cell site location information.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the police entry into the apartment violated the Fourth Amendment and required suppression of the evidence (Payton analysis).
- Whether the defendant's confession was admissible despite alleged attenuation and Miranda waiver issues.
- Whether the failure to provide CPL 710.30(1)(a) notice required preclusion of the defendant's statement about the photograph.
- Whether the motion to suppress historical cell‑site location information was proper.
- Whether the search warrant was properly issued.
- Whether the sentence should be reduced or run concurrently with a prior undischarged sentence.
Holdings
- The entry was lawful because it was with the mother's consent and the defendant was not arrested in his home; therefore, no Payton violation occurred and the evidence was not subject to suppression.
- The confession was voluntary and admissible; the attenuation period and the Miranda waiver were proper under the totality of circumstances.
- The error was harmless; the statement was not precluded because the error did not create a substantial probability of a different verdict.
- The motion was properly denied; the court order for the records functioned as a warrant because probable cause was found under 18 USC § 2703(d).
- The warrant was properly issued.
- No basis exists to reduce the sentence or order concurrent running with the prior sentence.
Factual background
Police entered the defendant's apartment with the consent of his mother, later arrested him on the sidewalk, obtained his cell phone at the precinct, and conducted a custodial interview after Miranda warnings. The interview occurred 9½ hours after his apprehension and was conducted by detectives not involved in the arrest. A still photograph from surveillance footage was shown to the defendant, who made a statement that was later admitted without proper CPL 710.30(1)(a) notice.
Procedural history
The trial court convicted the defendant of multiple felonies and sentenced him to 20 years to life. The defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence, the admissibility of his confession, and other issues. The Appellate Division reviewed the trial court's rulings.