Court of Appeals Scott Doll Decision

7/27/2019 Court of Appeals Scott Doll Decision

1/16

=================================================================Thi s opi ni on i s uncor r ect ed and subj ect t o r evi si on bef or epubl i cat i on i n the New Yor k Repor t s.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -No. 141The Peopl e &c. ,

Respondent ,v.

Scot t F. Dol l ,Appel l ant .

Ti mot hy P. Murphy, f or appel l ant .Wi l l i am G. Zi ckl , f or r espondent .

GRAFFEO, J . :

The pr i mar y i ssue i n t hi s appeal i s whether t he cour t s

bel ow cor r ect l y concl uded t hat t he act i ons of t he pol i ce wer e a

r easonabl e r esponse to a ser i ous and ongoi ng exi gent si t uat i on

under t he emergency doct r i ne.

- 1 -


2/16

- 2 - No. 141

I

At about 9: 00 P. M. one eveni ng i n February 2009, t he

Genesee Count y Sher i f f ' s Depar t ment r ecei ved a 911 report of a

suspi ci ous per son wal ki ng on a par t i cul ar r oadway. A deput y

r esponded and observed a man who mat ched t he descr i pt i on wear i ng

a one- pi ece camouf l age hunt i ng out f i t and a whi t e hood. As t he

i ndi vi dual appr oached the of f i cer ' s vehi cl e, he dr opped a met al

obj ect and pul l ed a l ug wr ench f r om hi s pocket . The deput y

obser ved what appeared t o be wet bl ood st ai ns on the man' s knees,

t hi ghs, hands and shoes.

The of f i cer asked t he man f or i dent i f i cat i on and he

pr oduced a cor r ect i on of f i cer i dent i t y car d bear i ng hi s name - -

Scot t Dol l . Def endant Dol l i ndi cat ed t hat he was wal ki ng t o

l ower hi s bl ood pr essure because he had a doct or ' s appoi nt ment

t he next morni ng. He f ur t her expl ai ned t hat hi s van was parked

near an aut omot i ve f aci l i t y and he asked f or a r i de t o t hat

l ocat i on. The deput y agr eed t o t ake def endant t o hi s vehi cl e.

Af t er def endant got i nt o t he r ear seat of t he pol i ce

car , t he f i r ef i ght er who had pl aced t he 911 cal l came t o t he

scene and i nf ormed t he deput y t hat when he had not i ced def endant

at t he aut omot i ve garage, def endant had t ur ned away f r om hi m and

cr ouched between t wo car s i n an at t empt t o avoi d detect i on.

Based on t hi s i nf ormat i on, t he deput y tol d def endant t hat he was

bei ng det ai ned unt i l t he si t uat i on was assessed. Def endant was

t hen f r i sked and handcuf f ed. I n r esponse t o a quest i on about t he

- 2 -


3/16

- 3 - No. 141

bl ood on hi s cl ot hes, def endant expl ai ned that he was wear i ng hi s

deer but cher i ng out f i t because of t he col d t emper at ur e that

eveni ng. He di d not expl ai n why t he bl ood was wet .

The deput y drove def endant t o hi s van and di scover ed

bl ood i n sever al pl aces i nsi de and out si de def endant ' s vehi cl e,

al ong wi t h bl oody gl oves near by. Ot her pol i ce of f i cer s who

arr i ved at t he scene not i ced bl ood on def endant ' s f ace and saw

hi m l eave bl oody f oot pr i nt s i n t he snow. Ar ound t hi s t i me,

def endant asked t o speak t o hi s di vor ce l awyer . When t he pol i ce

quest i oned def endant about whet her t he bl ood was f r om a deer or a

human, def endant decl i ned t o expl ai n t he sour ce of t he bl ood or

t ake t he deput i es t o t he al l eged but cher ed deer .

These unusual ci r cumst ances caused t he deput i es t o

bel i eve t hat a person may have been i nj ur ed i n an acci dent or

assaul t so t hey cont i nued t o quest i on def endant despi t e hi s

r equest f or l egal assi st ance. Def endant r epeat ed t hat he coul d

not answer t he of f i cer s' i nqui r i es. The pol i ce t hen t r i ed t o

cont act def endant ' s r el at i ves and acquai nt ances ( as wel l as ot her

i ndi vi dual s) t o det ermi ne whet her anyone needed emergency

assi st ance. Of f i cer s al so sear ched f or an i nj ur ed per son i n t he

vi ci ni t y wher e def endant had been wal ki ng. Event ual l y, pol i ce

of f i cer s went t o the r esi dence of def endant ' s busi ness par t ner

and di scover ed t he man l yi ng dead i n hi s dr i veway.

I n t he meant i me, t he pol i ce i mpounded def endant ' s van

and t ook hi m t o t he sher i f f ' s of f i ce. Def endant was

- 3 -


4/16

- 4 - No. 141

photogr aphed, t est ed f or DNA and hi s cl othes wer e sei zed. A f ew

hour s l at er , a f emal e f r i end ( a f or mer co- wor ker of def endant )

ar r i ved at t he pol i ce st at i on and asked t o speak wi t h def endant .

An i nvest i gator , who was aware of t he death of def endant ' s

busi ness par t ner , i ni t i al l y r ebuf f ed t he woman. He event ual l y

al l owed her t o meet wi t h def endant af t er expl ai ni ng t hat he

i nt ended t o remai n i n t he room whi l e they spoke and he woul d be

t aki ng not es but woul d not par t i ci pat e i n t he di scussi on. Dur i ng

t he meet i ng, wi t h t he i nvest i gat or onl y a f ew f eet away,

def endant t ol d t he woman t hat t he case di d not i nvol ve an ani mal ;

he had been present but di d not do anyt hi ng; t he case was "open

and shut " and he woul d be goi ng to j ai l ; and he woul d pr obabl y

get what he deser ved. When t he woman speci f i cal l y asked

def endant t o st at e t hat no one was dead, def endant r esponded " I

can' t t el l you t hat . "

The bl ood f ound on def endant ' s cl ot hes, hi s van and t he

gl oves was l at er mat ched t o t he vi ct i m. Fur t her i nvest i gat i on

r eveal ed t hat def endant had f i nanci al di f f i cul t i es t hat af f ect ed

hi s busi ness r el at i onshi p wi t h the deceased and t he men had

arr anged t o meet on t he day t he vi ct i m di ed.

Def endant was i ndi ct ed f or second- degr ee mur der . He

moved to suppress t he st at ement s he made t o t he pol i ce and hi s

f emal e acquai nt ance, as wel l as al l of t he physi cal evi dence,

pr i mar i l y cl ai mi ng t hat he had been ar r est ed wi t hout pr obabl e

cause and i nt er r ogat ed i n vi ol at i on of hi s r i ght t o counsel and

- 4 -


5/16

- 5 - No. 141

wi t hout r ecei vi ng Mi r anda warni ngs. Count y Cour t conduct ed an

evi dent i ary hear i ng and r ul ed t hat t he det ent i on and quest i oni ng

of def endant wer e j ust i f i ed under t he emer gency doct r i ne. The

cour t di d, however , suppr ess t he r esul t s of def endant ' s DNA t est

because t he pol i ce coul d have obt ai ned a warr ant . A j ur y

subsequent l y convi ct ed def endant of second- degr ee mur der and he

was sent enced t o a pr i son t er m of 15 year s t o l i f e.

The Appel l at e Di vi si on af f i r med ( 98 AD3d 356 [ 4t h Dept

2012] ) , det er mi ni ng t hat t he pol i ce act i ons wer e war r ant ed

because t he aut hor i t i es r easonabl y r esponded t o an emergency

si t uat i on. Two J ust i ces di ssent ed, bel i evi ng t hat t he emer gency

doct r i ne was unavai l abl e si nce t he pol i ce di d not know whet her an

act ual cr i me vi ct i m exi st ed. A di ssent er gr ant ed def endant l eave

t o appeal ( 19 NY3d 1003 [ 2012] ) . We now af f i r m.

I I

Def endant mai nt ai ns t hat hi s r i ght t o counsel and

Mi r anda pr otect i ons wer e vi ol ated because t he emer gency doct r i ne

shoul d not appl y wher e t he pol i ce di d not know f or cer t ai n i f a

cr i me had occur r ed or whet her an i nj ured per son needed emergency

ai d. Consequent l y, def endant cont ends t hat hi s mot i on t o

suppr ess shoul d have been gr ant ed and a new t r i al ordered. The

Peopl e asser t t hat t he pol i ce pr oper l y rel i ed on t he emer gency

doct r i ne i n l i ght of t he pecul i ar ci r cumst ances t hey conf r ont ed

- - a man wal ki ng al ong a publ i c r oad cover ed i n f r esh bl ood f or

whi ch no r easonabl e expl anat i on was r eadi l y f or t hcomi ng. They

- 5 -


6/16

- 6 - No. 141

ar gue t hat i t i s unnecessar y f or t he pol i ce t o have speci f i c

i nf or mat i on t hat a per son r equi r es assi st ance so l ong as t hey

r easonabl y bel i eve t hat t her e i s an exi gent si t uat i on demandi ng

t hei r at t ent i on.

As a gener al r ul e, a per son who i s i n cust ody cannot be

quest i oned wi t hout f i r st r ecei vi ng Mi r anda war ni ngs ( see e. g.

Peopl e v Ramos, 99 NY2d 27, 35 [ 2002] ) or af t er t he r i ght t o

counsel at t aches ( see e. g. Peopl e v Gi bson, 17 NY3d 757, 759

[ 2011] ) . Ther e ar e except i ons t o t hese pr i nci pl es, one of whi ch

i s r ef er r ed t o as t he "emer gency doct r i ne" ( see e. g. Mi chi gan v

Fi sher , 558 US 45, 47 [ 2009] ; Br i gham Ci t y v St uart , 547 US 398,

403 [ 2006] ; New York v Quar l es, 467 US 649, 655- 656 [ 1984] ;

Peopl e v Mol nar , 98 NY2d 328, 331- 333 [ 2002] ; Peopl e v Kr om, 61

NY2d 187, 198- 200 [1984] ; Peopl e v Mi t chel l , 39 NY2d 173, 177- 178

[ 1976] ) . I t r ecogni zes t hat t he Const i t ut i on "i s not a bar r i er

t o a pol i ce of f i cer seeki ng t o hel p someone i n i mmedi ate danger "

( Peopl e v Mol nar , 98 NY2d at 331) , t her eby excusi ng or j ust i f yi ng

ot her wi se i mper mi ssi bl e pol i ce conduct t hat i s an obj ect i vel y

r easonabl e r esponse t o an appar ent l y exi gent si t uat i on ( see

Br i gham Ci t y v St uart , 547 US at 404- 405) . We have expl ai ned

t hat t he except i on i s compr i sed of t hr ee el ement s:

( 1) t he pol i ce must have r easonabl e grounds

t o bel i eve t hat t her e i s an emer gency at handand an i mmedi ate need f or t hei r assi st ancef or t he pr ot ect i on of l i f e or pr oper t y andt hi s bel i ef must be gr ounded i n empi r i calf act s; ( 2) t he sear ch must not be pr i mar i l ymot i vat ed by an i nt ent t o ar r est and sei zeevi dence; and ( 3) t her e must be some

- 6 -


7/16

- 7 - No. 141

r easonabl e basi s, appr oxi mat i ng pr obabl ecause, t o associ at e t he emer gency wi t h thearea or pl ace t o be searched ( see Peopl e vMol nar , 98 NY2d at 332; Peopl e v Mi t chel l , 39

NY2d at 177- 178) .1

The appl i cabi l i t y of t he emer gency doct r i ne i s a mi xed quest i on

of l aw and f act t hat i s beyond our r evi ew i f t he r ecor d suppor t s

t he f i ndi ngs of t he cour t s bel ow ( see Peopl e v McBr i de, 14 NY3d

at 446; Peopl e v Dal l as, 8 NY3d at 891; Peopl e v Mol nar , 98 NY2d

at 335) .

Her e, we concl ude t hat t her e i s support i n t he r ecor d

f or t he det er mi nat i on t hat t he emer gency doct r i ne j ust i f i ed t he

pol i ce quest i oni ng. Speci f i cal l y, t he pol i ce of f i cer s r espondi ng

t o a 911 cal l f ound def endant wal ki ng al ong a publ i c r oad cover ed

i n f r esh, wet bl ood and t hei r r easonabl e i nqui r i es r egar di ng t he

sour ce of t he bl ood wer e met wi t h i nconsi st ent r esponses by

def endant , who ref used t o st at e whet her t he bl ood was f r om a

human or an ani mal . Under t hese ci r cumst ances, i t was r easonabl e

f or t he pol i ce t o bel i eve t hat a per son may have been ser i ousl y

i nj ur ed and i n need of i mmi nent emer gency assi st ance. Cont r ary

t o def endant ' s cont ent i on, t he f act t hat pol i ce di d not know

def i ni t i vel y whet her a cr i me had occur r ed or t he i dent i t y of t he

pot ent i al vi ct i m was not di sposi t i ve because t he emer gency

doct r i ne i s pr emi sed on r easonabl eness, not cer t i t ude ( see Peopl e

1 Whet her t he second f actor r emai ns vi abl e i s an i ssue weneed not r esol ve i n t hi s appeal ( see e. g. Peopl e v McBr i de, 14NY3d 440, 447 n * [ 2010] ; Peopl e v Dal l as, 8 NY3d 890, 891[ 2007] ) .

- 7 -


8/16

- 8 - No. 141

v Mol nar , 98 NY2d at 334- 335 [ t he emergency doct r i ne al l owed t he

pol i ce t o conduct a war r ant l ess r esi dent i al ent r y wi t hout knowi ng

i f a cr i me had t aken pl ace i nsi de] ; see e. g. Br i gham Ci t y v

St uart , 547 US at 404; Mi chi gan v Fi sher , 558 US at 49) . Hence,

t he cour t s bel ow pr oper l y deni ed def endant ' s mot i on t o suppr ess

t he st atement s he made t o t he pol i ce bef ore t he vi ct i m was

di scover ed and any evi dence t hat was der i ved f r om t hat

i nf ormat i on ( see general l y Peopl e v Kr om, 61 NY2d at 200- 201) .

I I I

Def endant al so assert s t hat he was ent i t l ed t o

suppr essi on of t he cust odi al st atement s he made t o hi s f emal e

acquai nt ance i n t he pr esence of a pol i ce i nvest i gat or . Accor di ng

t o def endant , t he pol i ce used t he woman i n or der t o conduct t he

f unct i onal equi val ent of a cust odi al i nt er r ogat i on. We di sagr ee.

The pur pose of t he Mi r anda r ul e i s t o "prevent [ ]

gover nment of f i ci al s f r om usi ng t he coer ci ve nat ur e of

conf i nement t o ext r act conf essi ons t hat woul d not be gi ven i n an

unr est r ai ned envi r onment " ( Ar i zona v Maur o, 481 US 520, 529- 530

[ 1987] ) . New Yor k' s i ndel i bl e r i ght t o counsel i s l i kewi se

desi gned t o pr event t he pol i ce f r om at t empt i ng t o el i ci t an

uncounsel ed wai ver of t he r i ght t o r emai n si l ent ( see gener al l y

Peopl e v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 381- 382 [ 2011] ) . On t hi s r ecord, i t

cannot be sai d as a mat t er of l aw t hat def endant ' s conver sat i on

wi t h hi s f r i end const i t ut ed "i nt er r ogat i on" ( see gener al l y Peopl e

v Nar adzay, 11 NY3d 460, 468 [ 2008] ) .

- 8 -


9/16

- 9 - No. 141

Her e - - as i n Ar i zona v Maur o ( 481 US 520 [ 1987] ) - - i t

i s undi sput ed t hat t he i nvest i gat or di d not conver se wi t h or

quest i on def endant dur i ng t hi s encount er ( see i d. at 527) . Nor

has def endant est abl i shed t hat a di scussi on of t hi s nat ur e r ose

t o t he l evel of a "psychol ogi cal pl oy t hat pr oper l y coul d be

t r eat ed as t he f unct i onal equi val ent of i nt er r ogat i on" ( i d. ) or a

subt er f uge t o ci r cumvent at t achment of t he i ndel i bl e r i ght t o

counsel . The i nvest i gat or i ni t i al l y r ef used t o al l ow t he woman

t o meet wi t h def endant but he r el ent ed onl y af t er she

per si st ent l y demanded t o speak wi t h def endant - - and af t er she

was speci f i cal l y i nf or med t hat t he of f i cer woul d be i n t he r oom

t aki ng notes of t he conver sat i on ( see i d. at 528) . Def endant was

al so cl ear l y awar e t hat t he pol i ce of f i cer was l i st eni ng t o t he

ver bal exchange si nce the i nvest i gator was onl y a f ew f eet away

when t he f r i ends conver sed. Despi t e t hese ci r cumst ances,

def endant never t hel ess st ated t hat an ani mal was not i nvol ved;

t he case was open and shut ; he was goi ng t o j ai l and woul d get

what he deser ved; and t hat he coul d not say t hat a person was not

dead. On t hese f act s, t he cour t s bel ow di d not er r i n f i ndi ng

t hat def endant ' s asser t i ons wer e vol unt ar y and admi ssi bl e at

t r i al .

Our concur r i ng col l eague bel i eves t hat Maur o i s

di st i ngui shabl e ( see concur r i ng op at 4 n 1) , but t he f act s of

Maur o bel i e t hi s asser t i on. The pol i ce of f i cer i n Maur o

acknowl edged t hat he "' sent an of f i cer i n t her e t o l i st en t o that

- 9 -


10/16

- 10 - No. 141

conver sat i on' " knowi ng " ' t hat i t was possi bl e t hat [ Maur o] mi ght

make i ncr i mi nat i ng st atement s' " and t hat he " ' want ed t o r ecord

t hat conver sat i on so as t o have a recor d of t hose i ncr i mi nat i ng

st atement s' " ( 481 US at 524 n 2) . More poi gnant l y f or pur poses

of t hi s appeal , Maur o speci f i cal l y expl ai ned t hat "[ o] f f i cer s do

not i nt er r ogat e a suspect si mpl y by hopi ng t hat he wi l l

i ncr i mi nat e hi msel f " ( 481 US at 529) . Cont r ar y t o t he

concur r ence' s cl ai m, t he f act t hat t he i nvest i gat or l i st ened t o

def endant ' s conver sat i on i n or der t o r ecor d any i ncul pat or y

st at ement s i s not det er mi nat i ve and t her e i s no basi s f or

suppr essi ng the vol unt ary st at ement s t hat def endant made t o hi s

acquai nt ance.

As a f i nal mat t er , t her e i s no mer i t t o def endant ' s

chal l enge t o t he l egal i t y of hi s det ent i on by t he pol i ce ( see

gener al l y Peopl e v Wi l l i ams, 17 NY3d 834, 835- 836 [2011] ) .

* * *

Accor di ngl y, t he or der of t he Appel l at e Di vi si on shoul d

be af f i r med.

- 10 -


11/16

Peopl e of t he St at e of New York v. Scot t F. Dol l

No. 141

Ri ver a, J . ( concur r i ng) :

I agr ee wi t h t he maj or i t y t hat t he emer gency doct r i ne

except i on appl i es wher e pol i ce have a basi s t o r easonabl y bel i eve

" t hat a person may have been ser i ousl y i nj ur ed and i n need of

i mmi nent emer gency assi st ance. " ( Maj or i t y op. at 7) . However , I

di sagr ee wi t h i t s concl usi on t hat t he pol i ce conduct f ol l owi ng

t he ter mi nat i on of t he emer gency di d not vi ol at e def endant ' s

r i ght s. I n my opi ni on, af t er t he emer gency ended, t he pol i ce

cont i nued t o act i n di sr egar d of def endant ' s pr i or demands t o

speak wi t h hi s l awyer and under mi ned hi s r i ght t o counsel .

The emer gency doct r i ne i s an except i on t o t he

est abl i shed const i t ut i onal pr ohi bi t i on on pol i ce i nt er r ogat i on i n

vi ol at i on of a suspect ' s ri ght t o counsel . Thi s except i on al l ows

pol i ce quest i oni ng of a suspect , i n der ogat i on of t he usual

Miranda warni ngs, where t he pol i ce may have reasonabl e gr ounds t o

bel i eve an emergency exi st s t hat demands t hei r i mmedi at e

at t ent i on. ( See New York v Quarles, 467 US 649, 656 [1984] [ "we do

not bel i eve t he doct r i nal under pi nni ngs of Miranda r equi r e t hat

i t be appl i ed i n al l i t s r i gor t o a si t uat i on i n whi ch pol i ce

of f i cer s ask quest i ons r easonabl y pr ompt ed by a concer n f or t he

publ i c saf et y" ] ) . The doct r i ne per mi t s quest i oni ng even wher e

- 1 -


12/16

- 2 - No. 141

t he suspect has speci f i cal l y i nvoked hi s r i ght t o counsel . ( See

People v Krom, 61 NY2d 187, 200 [ 1984] [ " t he pol i ce di d not

vi ol at e t he def endant ' s r i ght t o counsel under t he St at e

Const i t ut i on by quest i oni ng hi m concer ni ng t he vi ct i m' s

whereabout s" ] ) . However , once t he emergency ends, t he except i on

no l onger appl i es. ( Krom, 61 NY2d at 200; see also People v

Molina, 248 AD2d 489, 490 [ 2d Dept 1998] ) . The doct r i ne i s,

t hus, subj ect t o t empor al l i mi t s on t he suspensi on of a suspect ' s

r i ght s t o speak wi t h an at t or ney and on pol i ce i nt er r ogat i on

out si de t he pr esence of counsel . Wi t hout a t empor al l i mi t , t he

except i on woul d pot ent i al l y engul f , or ot her wi se encumber , a

suspect ' s r i ght s t o r ef use t o r espond t o pol i ce quest i oni ng and

seek assi st ance of counsel . The pol i cy r easons suppor t i ng t he

emer gency doct r i ne, and i t s at t endant suspensi on of l aw

enf or cement ' s dut y t o i nf or m t he def endant of hi s r i ght s i n

accor dance wi t h Miranda and t he pr ohi bi t i on on cust odi al

i nt er r ogat i ons out si de t he pr esence of counsel , al so suppor t t he

i mmedi at e reest abl i shment of t he def endant ' s r i ght s t o t hei r pr e-

emer gency st atus, once t he pol i ce are no l onger f aced wi t h

"gr ounds t o bel i eve that t here i s an emergency at hand and an

i mmedi at e need f or t hei r assi st ance" ( People v Molnar, 98 NY2d

328, 332 [ 2002] ; see also Maj or i t y op. at 6- 7) .

Here, as t he Peopl e concede, once t he body was

di scover ed t he emergency ended. Thus, no r easonabl e basi s

exi st ed f or t he cont i nuat i on of t he appl i cat i on of t he emer gency

- 2 -


13/16

- 3 - No. 141

except i on t o t he def endant . At t hat t i me, def endant , who had

pr evi ousl y asked f or counsel , was ent i t l ed t o t he t er mi nat i on of

al l cust odi al quest i oni ng, and t o speak wi t h an at t or ney. ( See

Krom, 61 NY2d at 200 [ "The pol i ce. . . shoul d not have cont i nued t o

quest i on t he def endant i n t he absence of counsel once the

vi ct i m' s body was f ound"] ) . The f act t hat def endant di d not

r epeat hi s r equest f or counsel di d not const i t ut e a wai ver of hi s

or i gi nal r equest ; such wai ver , i n f act , woul d be i nval i d out si de

t he pr esence of counsel . ( See People v Cunningham, 49 NY2d 203,

209 [ 1980] ) .

Rat her t han cease t hei r ef f or t s t o sear ch f or evi dence

and r eal i gn t hei r conduct wi t h wel l est abl i shed pr ecedent , t he

pol i ce cont i nued t o ext r act i nf or mat i on f r om def endant out si de

t he pr esence of counsel . Accor di ng t o t he r ecor d, t he

i nvest i gator was f ul l y awar e, at appr oxi mat el y 1am, t hat a body

had been di scover ed af t er bei ng not i f i ed over hi s pol i ce r adi o.

Thi s same i nvest i gat or was equal l y awar e of def endant ' s

i nvocat i on of counsel ear l i er i n t he ni ght . Yet , mor e t han t wo

hour s af t er t he pol i ce di scover ed t he body, t he i nvest i gat or

sought t o secur e i ncr i mi nat i ng st at ement s f r om t he def endant

wi t hout t he def endant havi ng had t he benef i t of speaki ng wi t h a

l awyer even once dur i ng t he cour se of a cust odi al pr ocess whi ch

l ast ed at l east si x hour s. The i nvest i gat or admi t t ed t hat he was

hopi ng t he def endant woul d make i ncr i mi nat i ng st at ement s when he

per mi t t ed t he def endant ' s f emal e acquai nt ance t o addr ess t he

- 3 -


14/16

- 4 - No. 141

def endant .

The maj or i t y r el i es on Arizona v Mauro, ( 481 US 520

[ 1987] ) , t o suppor t i t s concl usi on t hat t he use of t he f emal e

acquai nt ance was not t he f unct i onal equi val ent of an

i nt er r ogat i on. However , Mauro i s di st i ngui shabl e because i t di d

not i nvol ve pol i ce conduct f ol l owi ng suspensi on of def endant ' s

r i ght s under t he emer gency doct r i ne, nor di d i t i nvol ve t he

admi t t ed ef f or t s by l aw enf or cement t o el i ci t i ncr i mi nat i ng

st at ement s f r om t he def endant . I n Mauro, t he pol i ce advi sed t he

def endant of hi s Miranda r i ght s, t he def endant i nvoked hi s r i ght

t o counsel and al l quest i oni ng ceased. The pol i ce, however ,

per mi t t ed t he def endant ' s wi f e t o speak wi t h t he def endant . The

Cour t concl uded t hat t he pol i ce conduct , absent any evi dence or

suggest i on of i mpr oper mot i ves, di d not const i t ut e an

i nt er r ogat i on. ( 481 US at 529) . As t he Cour t not ed i n Mauro,

" [ n] or [ was] i t suggest ed- - or suppor t ed by any evi dence- - t hat

[ t he of f i cer ' s] deci si on t o al l ow Maur o' s wi f e t o see hi m was t he

ki nd of psychol ogi cal pl oy t hat pr oper l y coul d be t r eat ed as t he

f uncti onal equi val ent of i nt er r ogat i on. " ( Id. at 527) . Al so,

t her e was " no evi dence t hat t he of f i cer s sent [ Maur o' s wi f e] i n

t o see her husband f or t he pur pose of el i ci t i ng i ncr i mi nat i ng

st at ement s. " ( Id. at 528) . 1 Those concer ns, however , are exact l y

1The maj or i t y cont ends t hat t he cases ar e i ndi st i ngui shabl ebecause of f i cer s i n bot h cases act ed mer el y i n t he "hopes" ofover hear i ng i ncr i mi nat i ng st at ement s. Yet i n Mauro, t he of f i cersasser t ed saf et y and secur i t y reasons f or observi ng Maur oand hi swi f e, but al so acknowl edged t he possi bi l i t y t hat Maur o mi ght

- 4 -


15/16

- 5 - No. 141

at i ssue i n t he def endant ' s case. Fi r st , al l owi ng a f r i end t o

speak wi t h the def endant af t er t he pol i ce had spoken wi t h hi m,

and whi l e i n cust ody, car r i ed a cer t ai n amount of psychol ogi cal

i mpact . Second, t he i nvest i gat or ' s sol e ar t i cul at ed r eason f or

al l owi ng t he f r i end t o speak t o the def endant was t o recor d

i ncr i mi nat i ng st at ement s.

On t hese f act s, I cannot agr ee wi t h t he maj or i t y t hat

t he i nvest i gat or ' s act i ons wer e not "a subt er f uge t o ci r cumvent

t he at t achment of t he i ndel i bl e r i ght t o counsel . "( Maj or i t y op.

at 9) . The cl ear l y oppor t uni st i c use of t he si t uat i on cannot be

r econci l ed wi t h def endant ' s r i ght t o speak wi t h an at t or ney.

For t he same r easons, I woul d f i nd t hat t he pol i ce

conduct al so vi ol at ed def endant ' s r i ght s under our St at e

Const i t ut i on. I t bear s r epeat i ng t hat our Const i t ut i on pr ovi des

mor e expansi ve pr ot ect i ons t han t he f eder al Const i t ut i on.

( People v Alvarez, 70 NY2d 375, 378 [ 1987] [ " i n det er mi ni ng. . . t he

guar ant ees of f undament al r i ght s of t he i ndi vi dual i n t he

Const i t ut i on of t he St at e of New Yor k, t hi s cour t i s bound t o

exer ci se i t s i ndependent j udgment and i s not bound by a deci si on

of t he Supr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es l i mi t i ng the scope of

si mi l ar guar ant ees i n t he Const i t ut i on of t he Uni t ed St at es] ) .

Never t hel ess, as made i mmensel y cl ear by t he r ecord and

i ncr i mi nat e hi msel f . Her e, t he i nvest i gat or ' s onl y r eason f orbei ng pr esent i n t he room wi t h t he def endant and hi s f r i end wast o over hear and r ecor d t he def endant ' s pot ent i al l y i ncr i mi nat i ngst at ement s.

- 5 -


16/16

- 6 - No. 141

t he maj or i t y' s di scussi on of t he evi dence, i t cannot be sai d t hat

t he def endant ' s st at ement s t o hi s f r i end wer e of t he t ype t hat

cr eat es "a r easonabl e possi bi l i t y t hat t he er r or mi ght have

cont r i but ed t o t he convi ct i on. " ( See People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d

230, 241 [ 1975] ) . Ther ef or e, I concur .

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Or der af f i r med. Opi ni on by J udge Gr af f eo. Chi ef J udge Li ppmanand J udges Read, Smi t h, Pi got t and Abdus- Sal aam concur . J udgeRi ver a concur s i n r esul t i n an opi ni on.

Deci ded Oct ober 17, 2013

- 6 -

Court of Appeals Scott Doll Decision

Documents

Transcript of Court of Appeals Scott Doll Decision