Opinion
February 2, 1990
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Egan, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Denman, Green, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law, defendant's motion to suppress granted, and matter remitted to Monroe County Court for a new trial. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the suppression court erred in denying his motion to suppress his oral statement to the police at the station house. We agree. The suppression court found that defendant, while being transported by the police to the precinct house, made an oral statement to the police without having been adequately given his Miranda warnings. Within minutes of this unwarned statement, defendant was given his Miranda warnings at the station house and reiterated his confession. The hearing court suppressed defendant's initial statement because it was taken without compliance with Miranda v Arizona ( 384 U.S. 436), but denied his motion to suppress the statement made at the police station.
The second statement must also be suppressed. We cannot conclude on this record that there was "such a definite, pronounced break in the interrogation that the defendant may be said to have returned, in effect, to the status of one who is not under the influence of questioning" (People v Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112, 115). Defendant's statement at the police station must therefore be suppressed as the product of a continuous interrogation (see, People v Bethea, 67 N.Y.2d 364; People v Chapple, supra; People v Campbell, 123 A.D.2d 878; People v Bodner, 75 A.D.2d 440).