| People v Taylor |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09893 [57 AD3d 327] |
| December 18, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v William Taylor, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Michael Sachs of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J., at suppression hearing;Robert Stolz, J., at jury trial and sentence), rendered February 20, 2007, convicting defendant ofgrand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress statements. Following a radio run,three police officers, defendant and the complainant were all standing together on a street.Immediately after the complainant accused defendant of stealing his wallet, an officer turned todefendant and asked "What's going on here?" Defendant replied that he was only helping thecomplainant to recover his wallet, which had been stolen and discarded by someone else. Forseveral reasons, we reject defendant's argument that the officer was required to giveMiranda warnings before asking "What's going on here?"
First, defendant was not in custody. A reasonable innocent person in defendant's positionwould not have thought he was in custody (see People v Yukl, 25 NY2d 585 [1969],cert denied 400 US 851 [1970]), but rather "that the police were still in the process ofgathering information about the alleged incident prior to taking any action" (see People v Dillhunt, 41 AD3d216, 217 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 764 [2008]). Regardless of the questioningofficer's unconveyed belief (see Stansbury v California, 511 US 318, 325 [1994]) thatdefendant was a suspect and was not free to leave, none of the officers restrained defendant ordid anything to suggest to him that his freedom of movement had been restricted in any way.Second, even assuming there was a seizure, it was no more than an investigatory stop that did notrequire Miranda warnings (see Berkemer v McCarty, 468 US 420, 439-440[1984]; People v Bennett, 70 NY2d 891 [1987]). Finally, there was no interrogationrequiring warnings because the officer's simple inquiry was made to clarify the situation (seePeople v Johnson, 59 NY2d 1014 [1983]). Concur—Lippman, P.J., Tom, Buckley,Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.