In a recent case involving leaving the scene of an accident or incident before a New York appellate court, the defendant successfully argued that his motion to suppress was improperly denied by the lower court. The defendant was criminally charged and convicted after an incident in which he left the scene of an automobile accident without reporting. On appeal, however, the defendant argued that the police officer questioning him neglected to give him the proper Miranda warnings before soliciting information. Agreeing with the defendant, the appellate court ended up suppressing several of the defendant’s incriminating statements.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, state troopers were patrolling one evening when they pulled the defendant and his acquaintance over to the side of the road. Apparently, the troopers had been informed to be on the lookout for a car that looked similar to the defendant’s, whose driver was on the run after colliding with a motorcycle nearby.
The troopers brought the defendant out of his car, told him to place his hands on top of the vehicle, and began to question him about where he had been earlier that evening. At that point, the defendant admitted that he had been driving the car for several hours, including at the time the motorcycle accident happened. Quickly, the defendant backtracked and said that he had actually been on the train earlier that night. When the officer asked which train the defendant had taken, however, the defendant could not think of anything to say.
The defendant was charged with leaving the scene of an accident without reporting. He filed a motion to suppress the incriminating statements he made to the officers, but the lower court denied this motion. The defendant promptly appealed.
On appeal, the defendant’s main argument was that the officers should have given him Miranda warnings prior to asking him questions about the crime. Specifically, they should have told him that he had the right to remain silent and that he was entitled to legal help under the law. Because they did not provide these warnings, the subsequent statements should not be admissible in court.
Looking at the record of the case, the appellate court agreed with the defendant’s argument. It was clear, said the court, that the officers were trying to get information out of the defendant regarding the crime. If the officers did intend to learn incriminating information, they were supposed to provide the Miranda warnings that are designed to make sure defendants in criminal cases are well-informed before offering up any relevant information.
Because the officers failed to give these warnings, the original motion was improperly denied. The appellate court reversed the lower court’s judgment and suppressed the statements that the defendant gave to the officer that night.
Are You Looking for an Aggressive Defense Attorney in the State of New York?
At Tilem & Associates, we focus on developing winnable arguments and aggressive strategies that get you the outcomes you need in your criminal case. If you or a loved one has been charged with a crime in the state of New York, there is too much on the line to put your trust in anyone but the best. At Tilem & Associates, our NY criminal defense attorneys have over 40 years of experience getting results for our clients. For a free and confidential consultation with a member of our team, call us today at 877-377-8666.