People v. Carranza

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant argues that statements he made to a police officer without a lawyer present should have been suppressed, relying on the rule we announced in People v Arthur (22 NY2d 325, 329 [1968]): “[0]nce the police know or have been apprised of the fact that the defendant is represented by counsel or that an attorney has communicated with the police for the purpose of representing the defendant, the accused’s right to counsel at taches.” We reject defendant’s argument because the requirements of the Arthur…