From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Tracy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 1993
197 A.D.2d 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

October 1, 1993

Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Egan, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress a statement to Investigator Clark of the Rochester Police Department. The record does not support a determination that defendant was in custody during his interview with University of Rochester security officers, nor was there evidence sufficient to support defendant's assertion that the private security officers were acting as agents of the police (cf., People v. Ray, 65 N.Y.2d 282, 286; People v. Jones, 47 N.Y.2d 528). Consequently, the security officers were not obligated to give Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436). Investigator Clark's subsequent questioning of defendant was preceded by Miranda warnings and defendant acknowledged that he understood his rights and was willing to waive them. The record fully supports the suppression court's conclusion that defendant's statement to Investigator Clark was voluntary and properly admitted into evidence.


Summaries of

People v. Tracy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Oct 1, 1993
197 A.D.2d 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Tracy

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. PAUL TRACY, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Oct 1, 1993

Citations

197 A.D.2d 853 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
602 N.Y.S.2d 277

Citing Cases

People v. Martin

The search was conducted by a private employee in accordance with procedures issued by the hospital and in…

Bilicki v. Syracuse Univ.

There is nothing in the disciplinary code that requires application of Miranda warnings. The university's…