People v. Oquendo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Rosenberger, J. P.
Defendant and codefendant, Steven Pichardo, were charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second and third degrees (Penal Law §§ 265.03, 265.02 [4]). After a combined Huntley/Mapp hearing, the hearing court suppressed the gun and the statements that defendant had made at the station house both before and after receiving his Miranda warnings, on the grounds that the police questioning did not fall within the “public safety” exception to the Miranda rule enunciated in New York v Quarles (467 US 649). The post -Miranda statements were suppressed…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- New York v. QuarlesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- People v. ChestnutNew York Court of Appeals · 1980
- In the Interest of J.D.F.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1996
- Trice v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- People v. EnglishNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. DollAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. ScotchmerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
- People v. ScottAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- In re Cy R.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
- People v. LeachAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.