People v. Ledbetter, 47 Misc. 3d 336

Defendant arrested April 15, 2014 for attempted assault and endangering welfare of a child after police observed alleged injuries to his 2‑year‑old daughter; he was arraigned, remanded to jail, and assigned counsel.
Police reported the incident to the Family Protection Registry; CPS investigator Valerie Kurlander was assigned and conducted statutorily required follow‑up.
On April 21 the DA told Kurlander the mother had recanted and the grand jury presentation was postponed; Kurlander told the prosecutor she would interview the defendant in jail the next day and report results.
On April 22 Kurlander met the defendant in a jail interview room, told him she was a CPS investigator and he initially refused to speak; after she offered to read the report he agreed to hear it.
Kurlander read the Family Protection Registry narrative; the defendant then admitted striking his daughter with a belt and made other statements; Kurlander did not give Miranda warnings or advise him regarding counsel and promptly reported the admissions to the DA.
Defendant moved to suppress the statements as violations of his state right to counsel (post‑arraignment) and his Fifth Amendment Miranda rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether CPS investigator was an agent of law enforcement such that defendant's state right to counsel (post‑arraignment) attached	People: Kurlander acted independently conducting civil/state CPS work; no right‑to‑counsel violation	Defendant: Kurlander’s interview was coordinated with DA and aimed at aiding prosecution, so right to counsel attached and statements must be suppressed	Court: Kurlander was sufficiently intertwined with prosecution; agent of law enforcement; statements suppressed under state right to counsel
Whether Miranda warnings were required and their absence suppressed the statements	People: CPS interview was civil/state action not subject to Miranda because it was not law enforcement interrogation	Defendant: He was in custody and subject to interrogation; Miranda warnings required; failure to give them violated Fifth Amendment	Court: Defendant was in custody, interrogation occurred, Miranda warnings were not given; statements inadmissible under Miranda (but may impeach if defendant testifies)

People v Lopez, 16 N.Y.3d 375 (N.Y. 2011) (state right to counsel is indelible)
People v West, 81 N.Y.2d 370 (N.Y. 1993) (right to counsel attaches at commencement of formal proceedings)
People v Townes, 41 N.Y.2d 97 (N.Y. 1976) (civil inquiries that inevitably overlap criminal matters implicate counsel rights)
People v Velasquez, 68 N.Y.2d 533 (N.Y. 1986) (statements obtained in violation of right to counsel must be suppressed)
People v Wilhelm, 34 A.D.3d 40 (App. Div. 2006) (CPS investigators functioning with prosecutors/police may be law‑enforcement agents)
People v Greene, 306 A.D.2d 639 (App. Div. 2003) (CPS/prosecution cooperation can trigger counsel protections)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (custodial interrogation requires procedural warnings)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (interrogation includes words or actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
Jackson v. Conway, 763 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2014) (CPS interview used in prosecution violated Fifth Amendment where investigator was effectively a state actor)
People v Ray, 65 N.Y.2d 282 (N.Y. 1985) (distinguishing private actors from state actors for Miranda analysis)
People v Wise, 46 N.Y.2d 321 (N.Y. 1978) (inadmissible statements may still be used to impeach defendant who testifies)