DECISION AND ORDERA combined Huntley/Dunaway hearing was conducted on April 9, 2018, by the Court. The People have consented to the hearings but are opposed to any relief for the Defendant. The Defendant, who is charged with violating VTL §§1192(3) (Driving While Intoxicated by Alcohol), an unclassified misdemeanor and 1192(1) (Driving While Ability is Impaired by Alcohol), a traffic infraction, seeks suppression of statements he allegedly made to the Police. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.FINDINGS OF FACTThe People’s sole witness was Police Officer Rajitha Mendis. Officer Mendis has been a police officer for 2 years and is currently assigned to the 120th Precinct. He received training related to Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) cases while at the police academy. This training included learning the characteristics of someone who is under the influence of alcohol like being unsteady on one’s feet, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and the odor of alcohol on one’s breath.On March 11, 2017 Officer Mendis was patrolling with his partner, Officer Laffredo, in a marked patrol car. They received a radio run regarding a motor vehicle accident at Springhill Avenue and Brentwood Avenue, Staten Island, and they responded. Upon arrival Officer Mendis observed a car in the pond. There was a guy in the vehicle and it appeared that the car was driven through a wooden barrier from the road into the pond. Officer Mendis identified the Defendant as the guy he saw in the vehicle on March 11, 2017.The fire department also responded and was getting the Defendant out of the car when he stated “help, I can’t get out” within earshot of Officer Mendis. At the time of this statement the Defendant was not handcuffed. After the fire department personnel got the Defendant out of his vehicle, he was placed on a stretcher. The Defendant was unable to walk on his own after being taken out of the car. At that time, before the Defendant was placed on a stretcher, Officer Mendis observed the defendant to be unsteady on his feet, exhibit bloodshot eyes and have a strong odor of alcohol on his breath. Officer Mendis’ opinion that the defendant was unsteady on his feet was based on him being placed on a stretcher after being taken out of the vehicle in the pond. While on the stretcher, Officer Mendis heard the Defendant state “where are you taking me, where am I, I want to go home.” At the time of this last statement, the Defendant was handcuffed. The statement was not made in response to any questions by the police.There is no evidence that Miranda warnings were given to the Defendant at the time either of the two statements were made.CONCLUSIONS OF LAWMiranda warnings are required when a Defendant is in custody and being interrogated by the police (People v. Berkel, 97 A.D.3d 836 (2nd Dept. 2012)). Both elements must be present for Miranda warnings to be operable.Here, Miranda warnings were not necessary because even if the Defendant was in police custody he was not being interrogated at all when he made the two statements which are the subject of this hearing (see People v. Hinton, 148 A.D.3d 545 (1st Dept. 2017)). The Defendant’s statement while in the car at the time when the car was in a pond stating “help, I can’t get out” was a call for help and there was no police involvement and therefore Miranda warnings were both unnecessary and not even possible under the circumstances.The second statement “where are you taking me, where am I, I want to go home”, made at a time when the Defendant was handcuffed, not free to go, and without Miranda warnings having been given, was spontaneous and not as a result of any interrogation. “A spontaneous, volunteered statement is one made without any external prompting as opposed to one that is elicited directly or indirectly or otherwise induced by police action. If the statement is truly spontaneous, meaning self-generated, the statement will be admissible even though the defendant was in custody, and unwarned” (People v. Dunn, 195 A.D.2d 240 (2nd Dept. 1994)). Whether a statement is spontaneous or not is a determination which must be made based upon a consideration of the totality of the circumstances (People v. Tavarez-Nunez, 87 A.D.3d 1171 (2nd Dept. 2011)).Moreover, to the extent that the Defendant argues that he was arrested without probable cause, that argument too is of no avail. The police had probable cause to arrest the Defendant for Driving While Intoxicated and Driving While Ability Impaired by Alcohol based on Officer Mendis’ observations including noting the Defendant’s bloodshot eyes, a strong odor of alcohol on the Defendant’s breath, the Defendant being unsteady on his feet and that the Defendant having apparently driven a car through a wooden barrier and into a pond (People v. Mojica, 62 AD3d 100 (2nd Dept 2009)). While the Defendant was able to establish on cross examination that Officer Mendis’ determination that the Defendant was unsteady on his feet was based on the Defendant having to be carried by Fire Department personnel to a stretcher after being pulled out of the vehicle, this does not negate the fact that the People met their burden of establishing the lawfulness of the arrest at the hearing stage which is a lower standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt after trial.Accordingly, the Defendant’s motion to suppress his statements is denied.This opinion constitutes the decision and order of this Court.Dated: May 29, 2018Staten Island, NY
