| People v Davis |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 08972 [167 AD3d 1330] |
| December 27, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v James Davis, Appellant. |
Lisa A. Burgess, Indian Lake, for appellant.
Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Jeffrey C. Stitt Jr. of counsel), forrespondent.
Rumsey, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.),rendered October 26, 2016, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree, promoting prison contraband in the first degree (twocounts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
Defendant, an inmate, was charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree,criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and two counts of promotingprison contraband in the first degree after he admitted to being in possession of a weapon anddrugs as he was frisked during a search of his cell. Defendant's motion to suppress his statementwas denied following a Huntley hearing, and defendant subsequently pleaded guilty to allcharges. Thereafter, he was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 2 to 4 years for eachconviction of promoting prison contraband in the first degree, 2 to 4 years for his conviction ofcriminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and 2
Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that County Court erred in denying his motion tosuppress his statement to the correction officer because he made it without first having beengiven Miranda warnings. "In a correctional facility, Miranda warnings arenecessary where the circumstances of the detention and interrogation entail added constraint thatwould lead a prison inmate reasonably to believe that there has been a restriction on that person'sfreedom over and above that of ordinary confinement in a correctional facility. AMiranda warning is not necessary for relatively brief, generally public, or otherwiseon-the-scene investigatory detentions that are typically not custodial" (People v Decker, 159 AD3d 1190,1191 [2018] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and citations omitted], lv denied 31 NY3d1116 [2018]).
At the suppression hearing, correction officer Chad Stickney testified that he and anothercorrection officer, Jason Hanson, were assigned to conduct a search of defendant's cell. Theyremoved defendant from his cell and took him to the end of the galley where he was directed toplace his hands against a wall so that Hanson could conduct a pat frisk. Defendant was notshackled or isolated. As Hanson conducted the frisk, he turned to Stickney and said, "There'scontraband," then he turned to defendant and asked him whether he had contraband on hisperson. In response, defendant admitted that he had "a weapon and drugs." Stickney then placeddefendant in handcuffs and, during an ensuing strip search, a "scalpel type weapon" and aquantity of the controlled substance Buprenorphine were discovered. Under these circumstances,the pat frisk of defendant in connection with the search of his cell was a routine "on-the-sceneinvestigatory detention[ ]" (People vDarrell, 145 AD3d 1316, 1319 [2016], lv denied 29 NY3d 1125 [2017]; seePeople v Decker, 159 AD3d at 1191; cf. People v Gause, 50 AD3d 1392, 1393 [2008]; People v Van Patten, 48 AD3d 30,33 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 845 [2008]). Accordingly, the search was not a custodialinterrogation requiring Miranda warnings, and the suppression motion was properlydenied.
Devine, J.P., Mulvey, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment isaffirmed.