People v. Thomas, 70 N.Y.2d 823 (1987)
Audio/visual recordings of performance-based sobriety tests, including colloquy not amounting to custodial interrogation, are generally admissible without prior Miranda warnings.
Summary
The defendant was arrested for felony driving while intoxicated and taken to police headquarters for sobriety tests. An audio/video recording was made of the tests, including questions about pedigree, refusal to take a chemical test, and medical conditions. The defendant moved to suppress the audio portion of the tape, arguing that Miranda warnings were required before questioning. The court denied the motion, and the Appellate Division upheld the decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that performance tests need not be preceded by Miranda warnings and that the defendant failed to specifically identify which questions he found objectionable.
Facts
The defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated and charged with a felony. At police headquarters, he underwent performance-based sobriety tests. During the tests, he was questioned about his identity, his refusal to take a chemical analysis test, and whether he was under medication or diabetic. An audio/video recording was made of the entire process. Police form 38, containing similar questions and answers, was admitted at trial without objection.
Procedural History
Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress the audio portion of the tape, arguing that Miranda warnings should have been administered. The Judicial Hearing Officer denied the motion, finding no custodial interrogation. The trial court confirmed this determination. The Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s decision. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether audio portions of a video tape recording sobriety tests are inadmissible because no Miranda warnings were given before the defendant was questioned?
Holding
No, because performance tests need not be preceded by Miranda warnings, and the defendant failed to preserve the issue by not specifically identifying the objectionable questions.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, holding that audio/visual tapes of performance tests, including colloquy not constituting custodial interrogation, are generally admissible without Miranda warnings. The Court cited People v. Hager, 69 N.Y.2d 141 in support of this holding. Here, the Court emphasized that the defendant made a general motion to suppress the audio portions of the tape but failed to specify which questions and answers he found objectionable. Because of this lack of specificity, the defendant’s claims of inadmissibility were unpreserved and beyond the court’s review, citing People v. Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011. The Court also addressed the defendant’s argument that the prosecutor acted vindictively in indicting him for a felony, finding no merit to it. Citing Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, the court found no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct.