Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald C. Smith, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1981-10-22
Citations: 54 N.Y.2d 954
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald C. Smith, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 954–957

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ronald C. Smith, Appellant.
Argued September 17, 1981;
decided October 22, 1981
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Joseph A. Shifflett, Rose H. Sconiers and Joseph B. Mistrett for appellant.
Edward C. Cosgrove, District Attorney (John J. De Franks and Timothy R. Harvey of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, the statements obtained from defendant suppressed, and a new trial granted.
There is no question that the officer who questioned defendant knew that defendant had been arrested eight months earlier on a sodomy charge by the same police de partment. Indeed the officer testified that he assumed that defendant had an attorney on that charge. Since he had actual notice, the officer was "under an obligation to inquire whether defendant was represented by an attorney" on the earlier charge (People v Bartolomeo, 53 NY2d 225, 232; see People v Ramos, 40 NY2d 610, 617-618).
There is, however, no basis for suppression of the evidence obtained from the vehicle used by defendant. There is an affirmed finding of consent of the registered owner, the woman with whom defendant was then living. The fact that she was told the police had a search warrant (later found in validly issued) before she said "it wouldn't be necessary, that she would cooperate and [the police] could look at the car, to do anything we want to do" does not mandate a finding that she was simply acquiescing to the execution of the warrant rather than consenting to the search.