Opinion
April 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his questioning at the police station for approximately four hours before being given his Miranda warnings was custodial in nature and, therefore, the statements made by him before being read his Miranda rights should be suppressed (see, Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436). "In deciding whether a defendant was in custody prior to receiving his warnings * * * [t]he test is not what the defendant thought, but rather what a reasonable [person], innocent of any crime, would have thought had he been in the defendant's position" (People v Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, 589, cert denied 400 U.S. 851). The court should consider: (1) the amount of time the defendant spent with the police, (2) whether his freedom of action was restricted in any significant manner, (3) the location and atmosphere in which the defendant was questioned, (4) the degree of cooperation exhibited by the defendant, (5) whether he was apprised of his constitutional rights, and (6) whether the questioning was investigatory or accusatory in nature (see, People v Arcese, 148 A.D.2d 460).
Here, the defendant came to the police station voluntarily. He rode in the back of the police car alone, and the doors were unlocked. He was not handcuffed, and no force or threats of any kind were used. The questioning was investigatory. The defendant cooperated without protest, was not restrained when he was being questioned, and was given at least one break from the questioning. Under these circumstances, we find that a reasonable person in the defendant's position, innocent of any crime, would not have believed he was in custody (cf., People v Alaire, 148 A.D.2d 731). Therefore, the hearing court properly determined that any statement made by him prior to being given his Miranda rights was admissible.
Furthermore, although the defendant is mildly retarded, his own expert witness established that he understood the immediate meaning of his Miranda warnings, once given. Thus, he knowingly waived those rights when he gave his written and videotaped confessions following a reading of his Miranda warnings (see, People v Williams, 62 N.Y.2d 285, 287).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.