| Matter of Quadon H. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 08127 [55 AD3d 834] |
| October 21, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Quadon H., a Person Alleged to be a JuvenileDelinquent, Respondent. Presentment Agency, Appellant. |
—[*1] Steven Banks, New York, N.Y. (Tamara A. Steckler and John Newbery of counsel), forrespondent.
In a juvenile delinquency proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 3, the PresentmentAgency appeals from an order of the Family Court, Richmond County (DiDomenico, J.), datedNovember 29, 2007, which, after a hearing, granted that branch of the respondent's motion which wasto suppress his statement to law enforcement officials and dismissed the petition.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, that branch of therespondent's motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials is denied, thepetition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Richmond County, for furtherproceedings consistent herewith.
On May 22, 2007 following an attempted burglary of a dwelling, the police recovered eight latentfingerprints from the scene. Utilizing a police computer database, the police matched the recoveredfingerprints to the respondent. The respondent's fingerprints were present in the database because, inJune 2006, he had been fingerprinted in connection with an unrelated robbery. No charges were filed inconnection with that matter and those fingerprints should have been destroyed pursuant to Family CourtAct § 354.1. Following the fingerprint match, the respondent was taken into custody. The [*2]respondent then provided the police with a handwritten, inculpatorystatement. Following a pretrial suppression hearing, the Family Court granted that branch of therespondent's motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials reasoning that, asthe police's retention and use of the respondent's prior fingerprints constituted a violation of FamilyCourt Act § 354.1, the police lacked probable cause to arrest the respondent.
As the Presentment Agency correctly concedes, Family Court Act § 354.1 requiring thedestruction of the respondent's fingerprints was violated since no petition was filed in connection withthe incident which led to that arrest. However, the Presentment Agency contends that the violation ofFamily Court Act § 354.1 does not warrant suppression. We agree.
In People v Patterson (78 NY2d 711 [1991]), the Court of Appeals held that an adultdefendant's right to have his or her photograph destroyed pursuant to CPL 160.50 did not implicatefundamental constitutional interests or considerations and thus, suppression for a violation of that statutewas not warranted (see People v Gilbert, 136 AD2d 562 [1988]). Family Court Act §354.1 provides juvenile respondents with a similar statutory right as provided by CPL 160.50. Here, asin Patterson, the right conferred on the respondent pursuant to Family Court Act §354.1 to have his fingerprints destroyed does not implicate fundamental constitutional interests orconsiderations. Hence, the violation of Family Court Act § 354.1, "does not, without, more,justify suppressing of evidence to which that violation leads" (People v Greene, 9 NY3d 277, 280 [2007]). There are no additionalcircumstances present in this case to support the Family Court's decision to suppress the respondent'sstatement to law enforcement officials. Therefore, the Family Court should have denied that branch ofthe respondent's motion which was to suppress his statement to law enforcement officials and thepetition must be reinstated. Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Miller and Leventhal, JJ., concur. [See 18Misc 3d 367 (2007).]