Opinion
KA 16–01795 1520
02-02-2018
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Appellant, v. Robert TARBELL, Defendant–Respondent.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR APPELLANT. FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (NATHANIEL V. RILEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (JAMES P. MAXWELL OF COUNSEL), FOR APPELLANT.
FRANK H. HISCOCK LEGAL AID SOCIETY, SYRACUSE (NATHANIEL V. RILEY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, DEJOSEPH, NEMOYER, AND CURRAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Memorandum:The People appeal from an order that granted in part defendant's motion seeking, inter alia, to suppress statements that he made to the police. This prosecution arises from an incident in which a motor vehicle registered to defendant struck a guardrail on an interstate highway, and came to rest in the passing lane. The vehicle was then hit by a bus, resulting in injuries to several passengers on the bus. The operator of the vehicle left the scene before the State Police arrived, and no one responded when one of the troopers went to defendant's home to investigate. About an hour after the accident, that trooper found defendant walking some distance from the accident in an apparently intoxicated condition, and defendant initially denied operating the vehicle. The trooper placed defendant in the police vehicle and continued to questionhim. Defendant eventually admitted that he was driving the vehicle when it struck the guardrail, and that he left it in the roadway. The People concede that the trooper did not provide Miranda warnings to defendant. After defendant was indicted on a series of charges arising from the incident, including assault in the first degree ( Penal Law § 120.10 [3] ), he submitted a series of motions, including a motion seeking, inter alia, to suppress the statements he made to the trooper. County Court granted that motion in part, suppressing the statements defendant made in response to the trooper's questions after defendant was placed in the trooper's patrol vehicle. We affirm.
We reject the People's contention that the trooper was justified in questioning defendant without providing Miranda warnings, pursuant to the emergency doctrine. It is well settled that "the emergency doctrine ... recognizes that the Constitution is not a barrier to a police officer seeking to help someone in immediate danger ..., thereby excusing or justifying otherwise impermissible police conduct that is an objectively reasonable response to an apparently exigent situation ... [The Court of Appeals has] explained that the exception is comprised of three elements: (1) the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief must be grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search must not be primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched" ( People v. Doll, 21 N.Y.3d 665, 670–671, 975 N.Y.S.2d 721, 998 N.E.2d 384 [2013], rearg. denied 22 N.Y.3d 1053, 981 N.Y.S.2d 359, 4 N.E.3d 371 [2014], cert denied ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1552, 188 L.Ed.2d 568 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted] ). Here, contrary to the People's contention, the evidence at the suppression hearing failed to establish that "the circumstances known to the [trooper] supported an objectively reasonable belief that [further questioning] was needed to render emergency assistance to an injured [person] or to protect [a person] from imminent injury" ( People v. Ringel, 145 A.D.3d 1041, 1045, 44 N.Y.S.3d 152 [2d Dept. 2016], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 952, 54 N.Y.S.3d 382, 76 N.E.3d 1085 [2017] ; see People v. Hammett, 126 A.D.3d 999, 1001, 6 N.Y.S.3d 107 [2d Dept. 2015], lv denied 25 N.Y.3d 1202, 16 N.Y.S.3d 524, 37 N.E.3d 1167 [2015] ; cf. People v. Samuel, 152 A.D.3d 1202, 1204–1205, 59 N.Y.S.3d 632 [4th Dept. 2017], lv denied 30 N.Y.3d 983, 67 N.Y.S.3d 585, 89 N.E.3d 1265 [2017] ).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.