DECISION & ORDER The Court conducted a Huntley hearing on May 17, 2022. Detective Investigator Thomas Joyce (hereinafter “DI Joyce”) testified on behalf of the People. STATEMENT OF FACTS DI Joyce testified that he has been employed by the Richmond County District Attorney’s Office (hereinafter “the RCDA”) for 6 years and is currently assigned to the Conviction Integrity Review Unit. DI Joyce testified that prior to working with the RCDA he was employed by the New York City Police Department for twenty-two (22) years and was last assigned to the homicide squad. DI Joyce testified that he was working on July 1, 2021. That day, DI Joyce was contacted by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent who informed him that Saleem Asghar was getting on an airplane that afternoon, which DI Joyce later learned was traveling to Pakistan. DI Joyce testified that he had been looking for Saleem Asghar as part of the DI’s investigation into a grand larceny case. DI Joyce further testified that he and another member of his office, Deputy Chief Barrero, along with the aforementioned ICE Agent arrived at JFK Airport at approximately 4:06p.m. DI Joyce testified that at that time he saw a female that he had encountered as part of his investigation that he recognized to be Saleem Asghar’s wife standing next to a man seated on the floor facing away from the DI. Upon approaching the woman, DI Joyce then recognized the man she was standing with to be Saleem Asghar. DI Joyce approached the Defendant and said “Saleem” to him, which the Defendant responded to with “yes.” DI Joyce identified himself to the Defendant, and the Defendant then identified himself to the DI by handing him his passport. DI Joyce testified that he had spoken with the Defendant a few times prior during the investigation, so the Defendant knew who the DI was and that he was looking for him. Upon verifying via the passport that the Defendant was who the DI was looking for, DI Joyce asked the Defendant to stand up and placed the Defendant in handcuffs and brought the Defendant to the DI’s vehicle. DI Joyce testified that he then began to drive back to the Staten Island District Attorneys office with the Defendant. DI Joyce testified that as he was driving the vehicle the Defendant began asking questions about the case. The DI responded that when the two returned to the DI’s office, he would explain everything. At approximately 4:25p.m. DI Joyce testified that the Defendant began speaking about “financials.” At that point, DI Joyce testified that he pulled over his vehicle on Bay Street in Staten Island, near the RCDA, so that he could read the Defendant his Miranda rights. DI Joyce testified that he did not want the Defendant to issue any more statements before he read him his Miranda rights. DI Joyce testified that he did not have a copy of the Miranda warnings on him at that time, so he Googled searched for a Miranda warning card on his cell phone. DI Joyce testified that he took a screenshot1 of the exact card with the Miranda warnings he read to the Defendant on that date and time. This Court has reviewed the Miranda warnings contained in People’s Exhibit 1 and finds them to be satisfactory. DI Joyce testified that he read the warnings from his phone in English and that the Defendant responded in English. DI Joyce testified that at no point did the Defendant indicate that he could not understand English. DI Joyce testified that after he read the questions to the Defendant, he asked the Defendant if he understood, to which the Defendant responded “yes.” DI Joyce further testified that after he Mirandized the Defendant, the Defendant stated to him “the jobs were not completed because [I] didn’t have the workers to complete the jobs. [I] did the jobs and [I] used all the money for the jobs.” DI Joyce testified that he memorialized these statements on a piece of paper at the time they were stated, and later on as part of his investigation report.2 The paper that DI Joyce memorialized the Defendant’s statement on was the back of a printed photograph of the Defendant that DI Joyce had in his vehicle as part of his investigation. DI Joyce further testified that that was the only paper he had available at that time. Based on his testimony, this Court finds DI Joyce to be a credible witness. At the conclusion of the testimony this Court expressed three concerns. The first was that DI Joyce did not expressly identify the Defendant in court as the individual he took the statement from. Next was that the People failed to illicit express testimony from DI Joyce regarding the Miranda warnings he read to the Defendant from his phone. Finally, the People additionally failed to elicit testimony showing that Defendant responded to the Miranda warnings indicating that he understood those warnings. Both sides were instructed to brief these issues, and the case was adjourned to May 26, 2023, for further arguments. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The People have the burden of proof regarding statement suppression and the People must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the voluntariness of the statements. People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y3.d 72 (1965); People v. Holland, 48 N.Y.2d 861 (1979). However, while the People have the initial burden of proving that the statements were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, “the defendant bears the ultimate burden of proving that the statements were obtained in violation of his or her right to counsel or in some other illegal manner.” People v. Brown, 46 A.D.3d 1128, 1129 (3d Dep’t 2007). When a person is taken into custody or significantly deprived of freedom, the Fifth Amendment requires that the police administer Miranda warnings. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966). Although a person in custody must be administered Miranda warnings, there are various exceptions regarding statement admissibility when Miranda warnings are not provided. For example, when a defendant makes a spontaneous statement without having received Miranda warnings, the statement is admissible. The statement must be genuine and not the product of inducement, provocation, or encouragement. People v. Stoesser, 53 N.Y.2d 648 (1981); People v. Kern, 149 A.D.2d 187 (2d Dep’t 1989). The standard for determining whether a statement was voluntary is whether the “defendant’s statement can be said to have been triggered by police conduct which should reasonably have been anticipated to evoke a declaration from the defendant.” People v. Lynes, 49 N.Y.2d 286 (1980). In this case the People concede that the Defendant was in custody when the statements were made. As the People argue however, the Defendant was not the subject of any interrogation when he began speaking to DI Joyce en route to the RCDA. There is no evidence in the record before this Court that the Defendant was questioned in any way before he made his statement, outside of DI Joyce’s initial questions verifying the Defendant’s identify before placing him into custody. Rather, it was in an exercise of caution that DI Joyce stopped his vehicle in order to warn the Defendant of his rights. The Defendant’s contention that he should have been issued his Miranda rights upon being placed in custody fails for this reason, as he was not subject to any custodial interrogation that would have triggered DI Joyce’s obligation to warn the Defendant of his rights. This Court further finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was sufficiently advised of his rights and freely and voluntarily made a statement to DI Joyce. Although at the conclusion of testimony this Court raised the issue that DI Joyce never made an in-court identification of the Defendant, the issue presented in a Huntley hearing is not whether the Defendant did or did not make the statement at issue, but rather whether the statement was taken in violation of the Defendant’s rights. In requesting a Huntley hearing, there is an implicit admission by the Defendant that he made the statement to law enforcement that is the subject of the hearing. See People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72, 74 (1965). However, even in the absence of this analysis, Defense counsel’s cross-examination of DI Joyce further supports this Court’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant did in fact make the statement to DI Joyce. With regards to the substance of the Miranda warnings issued to the Defendant by DI Joyce, this Court finds that the warnings contained in People’s Exhibit 1 were sufficient to advise the Defendant of his rights. See People v. Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 720, 722 (1981). This Court further finds that the Defendant understood his rights and freely and voluntarily made his statement to DI Joyce. The cross-examination testimony clearly shows that DI Joyce read each of the Defendant’s rights to him, and that afterwards DI Joyce asked the Defendant if he understood, to which the Defendant responded that he did. As a result of the foregoing, after a full review of the testimony and submitted evidence, the Defendant’s request to suppress the arrest and statements is hereby denied. This constitutes the decision and order of this court. Dated: May 30, 2023
