People v. Rhodes
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant correctly contends that his statements to the police made prior to the administration of Miranda warnings (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]) should have been suppressed. Considering all the relevant factors, an innocent person in the defendant’s position would not have believed he *669was free to leave after being taken to the police station in handcuffs, questioned for about three hours, and asked to give the police his clothing and DNA samples (see People v Macklin, 202 AD2d 445 [1994]). However, the evidence of the defendant’s guilt, without reference to the statements…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- People v. ContesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Franks v. DelawareSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- People v. CrimminsNew York Court of Appeals · 1975
- People v. RomeroNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- People v. RedmonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
- People v. MejiaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- People v. RiveraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- People v. McGeachyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2010
- People v. NadalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.