People v. Langdon

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the suppression court erred in denying his motion to suppress his oral statements to the police. We disagree. There is no merit to defendant’s argument that his oral statements to Officer Phillips were the product of custodial detention without probable cause. The record establishes that defendant voluntarily agreed to accompany the officer to the police station. Since "[c]onsent is a valid substitute for probable cause” (People v Hodge, 44 NY2d 553, 559), we need not address defendant’s arguments that he was in custody at the…