IN RE: ANDRE A. (Anonymous) (2018)

Order of disposition, Family Court, New York County (Adetokunbo O. Fansanya, J.), entered on or about August 5, 2016, which adjudicated appellant a juvenile delinquent upon appellant's admission that he committed an act that, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and placed him on probation for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly denied appellant's suppression motion to the extent appealed from.  Initially, we find no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations.

For purposes of this appeal we assume, without deciding, that the police encounter with appellant was an arrest requiring Miranda warnings, as opposed to an investigatory detention that does not require those warnings, regardless of whether the suspect is free to leave (see Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 436–437, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 [1984];  People v. Bennett, 70 N.Y.2d 891, 524 N.Y.S.2d 378, 519 N.E.2d 289 [1987] ).  Nevertheless, we conclude that appellant's statement, made after an officer answered appellant's question about why he was being detained, was spontaneous and not the result of interrogation (see Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300–301, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 [1980] ).  “Where, as here, a defendant's inquiry concerning the reason for an arrest is immediately met by a brief and relatively innocuous answer by the police officer, there is no interrogation or its functional equivalent” (People v. Mercado, 92 A.D.3d 458, 458, 939 N.Y.S.2d 335 [1st Dept. 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted], lv denied 18 N.Y.3d 996, 945 N.Y.S.2d 650, 968 N.E.2d 1006 [2012] ).

When the police removed a box cutter from appellant's pocket, this seizure was incident to a lawful arrest.  Based on first-hand information provided by a store manager, and a surveillance videotape, the police had probable cause to believe that defendant had committed a crime in the store and had not merely been involved in some kind of dispute.  We have considered and rejected appellant's arguments to the contrary.