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. Juan LOPEZ, Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Delaware County (Becker, J.), rendered January 9, 2006, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of robbery in the second degree and menacing in the second degree.
On January 7, 2005, State Police investigators arrested defendant on a bench warrant issued by a local criminal court in Albany County. Following his arrest, defendant was questioned about his involvement in an unrelated robbery in Delaware County. Based upon defendant's inculpatory statements, he was arrested and processed for that robbery. Following his indictment, defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree and menacing in the second degree and sentenced, as a persistent felony offender, to 15 years to life in prison. Defendant now appeals.
Defendant claims that his convictions should be reversed inasmuch as there existed no probable cause for his arrest for robbery and his arrest on the bench warrant was a pretext to question him about the robbery. We disagree. It has long been the law that a lawful arrest does not violate a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights merely because, at the time of the arrest, the arresting officers were intent upon questioning the defendant about an unrelated and far more serious crime (see e.g. People v. Clarke, 5 A.D.3d 807, 810, 772 N.Y.S.2d 630 [2004], lvs. denied 2 N.Y.3d 796, 797, 781 N.Y.S.2d 295, 296, 814 N.E.2d 467, 468 [2004] ).
We likewise reject defendant's assertion that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated. The record reflects that, at the time of his arrest on the local court bench warrant, defendant was not represented by counsel and, thus, the police were free to question defendant on matters unrelated to that offense (see People v. Vaughn, 275 A.D.2d 484, 489, 712 N.Y.S.2d 193 [2000], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 788, 725 N.Y.S.2d 653, 749 N.E.2d 222 [2001] ). We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find them equally unavailing.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
CREW III, J.
CARDONA, P.J., PETERS, MUGGLIN and LAHTINEN, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: July 19, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)