People v. ServicePeople v. Service
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Tom
The court properly denied defendant‘s suppression motion. There is no basis for suppression of defendant‘s second and third statements. Approximately seven hours after defendant made an undisputedly voluntary initial statement, a detective preceded renewed interrogation with a reference to the fact that defendant had received Miranda warnings before his initial statement. This remark could not have reasonably been understood by defendant to mean that his prior waiver of rights was irrevocable, and “there was no reason to believe that defendant ‘had forgotten or no longer understood his constitutional rights’ ” (People v Hotchkiss, 260 AD2d 241, 241 [1st Dept 1999], lv denied 93 NY2d 1003 [1999]).
We have considered and rejected defendant‘s pro se claims. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.