Court Opinion

ID: 9673634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:15:44.204299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:23.273899
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
ONION, Judge.
We have carefully re-examined the record in this cause and remain convinced of our original decision.
Again, appellant argues this case is indistinguishable from Orozco v. Texas, 394 *583U.S. 324, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311. We do not agree.
In People v. Torres, 21 N.Y.2d 49, 286 N.Y.S.2d 264, 233 N.E.2d 282, the New York Court of Appeals held that a defendant’s inculpating remarks to a police officer disclosing the whereabouts of booklets which were the basis for prosecution for the possession of policy slips were properly admitted in evidence, even though made before the police officer had informed defendant of his Miranda rights, where the statement was made after the search warrant had been exhibited by the officer but before he asked any questions of the defendant.
There, as here, the defendant argued that once the officer entered the apartment and exhibited the warrant, the defendant was “deprived of his freedom in [a] significant way. * * * ”
The Torres Court replied as follows:
“While it is quite arguable that a defendant, who is shown a search warrant covering his apartment and person and then questioned, even in his own home, is deprived of his freedom in a ‘significant way,’ this issue need not now be decided (cf. People v. Rodney P. [Anonymous], supra [21 N.Y.2d 1, 286 N.Y.S.2d 225, 233 N.E.2d 255]). The important point is that defendant was never questioned; rather, he volunteered the whereabouts of the contraband before the officer had asked any questions (presuming that he had intended to do so).”
* * * * * *
“Defendant’s inculpating remark is admissible, then, unless one is to conclude that the mere existence of the search warrant coupled with the officer’s presence amounted to a ‘compelling influence.’ Such an interpretation would extend the Miranda rules beyond their avowed purpose, namely, to forbid ‘custodial interrogation’ by law enforcement officials of suspects who have not been informed of certain constitutional rights. Absent interrogation, post-Miranda decisions have consistently held that voluntary or ‘spontaneous’ statements made by suspects who were plainly in custody are admissible.”
We do not interpret the statement made by one of the officers in the instant case that “This is a search warrant for marihuana. I know it’s here and we are going to find it” as constituting custodial interrogation under the circumstances presented.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.