From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Matos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 21, 1983
93 A.D.2d 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Opinion

April 21, 1983


Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Greenfield, J.), rendered on July 1, 1980, convicting the defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of murder in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent sentences of 20 years to life and 25 years to life, is unanimously affirmed. On March 12, 1979, largely as the result of information supplied by an informant, police officers entered defendant's apartment without a warrant and placed him and his girlfriend, Christine Perdicaro, under arrest. The couple were driven separately to the station house. During the trip to the precinct, the detectives advised Perdicaro that they were investigating the homicides of Charles Fashaw and Karen Guy. Perdicaro thereupon made statements implicating the defendant in the killings. Although the record reveals that the police did, in fact, possess probable cause to arrest defendant at the time that they entered his apartment, a warrantless arrest effected in a suspect's home is unlawful in the absence of exigent circumstances. ( Payton v New York, 445 U.S. 573; see, also, United States v Johnson, 457 U.S. 537.) The People concede that Payton is applicable to the instant case. They also do not dispute the propriety of the hearing court's determination that no exigent circumstances existed in the present situation to support a warrantless arrest. However, defendant's inculpatory statements in the station house one and one-half hours after he was arrested, and after he received his Miranda warnings, were admissible, inasmuch as any potential taint because of the circumstances of the arrest had been attenuated in the interval. His statements were voluntarily made and were elicited after Perdicaro's statements implicating him had been made to the police, and after he had been advised that "she told us about the rape" (precisely the same account that the defendant eventually gave). The defendant, of course, lacks standing to challenge Perdicaro's statements. (See People v Henley, 53 N.Y.2d 403.)

Concur — Sandler, J.P., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Milonas, JJ.


Summaries of

People v. Matos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 21, 1983
93 A.D.2d 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)
Case details for

People v. Matos

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. MIGUEL MATOS, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 21, 1983

Citations

93 A.D.2d 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1983)

Citing Cases

People v. Harris

However, in the case before it the court denied suppression because the arrest was made in the "congenial"…

People v. Minley

l hours after defendant's apprehension, should have been suppressed as fruit of the illegal arrest. This…