People v. Tolentino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tolentino

40 A.D.2d 596

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 26, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 596 (People v. Tolentino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Tolentino, 40 A.D.2d 596 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on January 15, 1971, granting in part defendant’s motion to suppress certain incriminating statements, affirmed. Defendant’s interrogation followed a search of his person, under authority of a search warrant, by police officers with drawn guns. Obviously, defendant was in custody, his will to resist was affected and there was compulsion to speak. Clearly, under these circumstances, defendant was entitled to the Miranda warnings before being questioned. (See People v. Phinney, 22 N Y 2d 288, 291; People v. Shivers, 21 N Y 2d 118.) Concur — Nunez, Kupferman and Murphy, JJ.; Stevens, P. J., and Markewich, J., dissent and vote to reverse and deny the defendant’s motion on the authority of People v. Ryff (27 N Y 2d 707).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered on January 15, 1971, granting in part defendant’s motion to suppress certain incriminating statements, affirmed. Defendant’s interrogation followed a search of his person, under authority of a search warrant, by police officers with drawn guns. Obviously, defendant was in custody, his will to resist was affected and there was compulsion to speak. Clearly, under these circumstances, defendant was entitled to the Miranda warnings before being questioned. (See People v. Phinney, 22 N Y 2d 288, 291; People v. Shivers, 21 N Y 2d 118.) Concur — Nunez, Kupferman and Murphy, JJ.; Stevens, P. J., and Markewich, J., dissent and vote to reverse and deny the defendant’s motion on the authority of People v. Ryff (27 N Y 2d 707).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tolentino-nyappdiv-1972.