Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Adam SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Dora Irizarry, J.), rendered August 7, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of four counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree and three counts of criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's motion to suppress statements was properly denied. The detective's actions in placing the stolen wallet and the victim's driver's license onto a table where defendant was sitting and waiting to be questioned, while the detective briefly conversed with other officers about locating the victim, were incidental to processing the arrest and did not constitute interrogation or its functional equivalent (compare People v. Ferro, 63 N.Y.2d 316, 322, 482 N.Y.S.2d 237, 472 N.E.2d 13). Defendant knew that the police had recovered the wallet after an officer saw him drop it as he was being apprehended. Further, there was no likelihood that defendant would have considered the wallet or the discovery of another person's driver's license inside it to be so surprising or damaging as to persuade him to make incriminating statements. Moments later, and before defendant made any statement, the detective properly gave Miranda warnings. It was only after those warnings that any actual questioning or its equivalent took place, and defendant's subsequent inculpatory statements were voluntarily given (see People v. Vasquez, 235 A.D.2d 322, 652 N.Y.S.2d 962 affd. 90 N.Y.2d 972, 665 N.Y.S.2d 952, 688 N.E.2d 1034).
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: October 10, 2002
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)