People v. BaxterPeople v. Baxter
Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the record supports the hearing court‘s determination that the police were justified in stopping his vehicle based on their reasonable suspicion of
Also, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant‘s omnibus motion which was to suppress his statements to law enforcement officials, as the statements were made after the defendant intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights (see Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 [1966]; People v Santos, 38 AD3d 574, 575 [2007]) and were not the product of coercion (see People v Cooper, 36 AD3d 828 [2007]). We reject the defendant‘s related contention that his statements should have been suppressed based on a violation of his right to counsel because they were obtained following his arrest on a valid parole violation warrant. Contrary to the defendant‘s assertion, the issuance of a parole violation warrant does not constitute the commencement of a criminal proceeding to which the indelible right to counsel attaches (see People v Frankos, 110 AD2d 713 [1985]; see also People v Pelkey, 294 AD2d 669, 670 [2002]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.