DECISION AND ORDER The Defendant, Juan Morales-Guerra (“Defendant”), is charged with Leaving the Scene of an Incident without Reporting. A Dunaway/Huntley hearing was held. The People called two (2) witnesses: Suffolk County Police Department Detectives Steven Gargan and Jack Balaguera. FINDINGS OF FACT The Court finds the People’s witnesses to be credible. On the evening of May 23, 2022, into the early morning hours of May 24, 2022, Suffolk County Police Detective Steven Gargan was working in the confines of the Third Precinct, when he became involved in motor vehicle accident investigation. At or around 11:30 p.m., on May 23, 2022, Detective Gargan was notified of a motor vehicle accident victim, a man later identified as Pastor Argueta, located on the side of Washington Avenue, a public highway, just south of Roosevelt Street, also a public highway, in Brentwood, New York, located within the County of Suffolk. This victim was struck by a car almost two hours prior, at approximately 9:50 p.m., and was suffering from a head laceration and chin laceration as a result, as well as other serious injuries. When Detective Gargan arrived at the scene at approximately 11:45 p.m., the roadway was well-lit with streetlights every one-hundred (100) feet, approximately. At that time, the victim was no longer at the scene and had already been transported to South Shore University Hospital, in Bay Shore, New York. The victim’s injuries consisted of a crushed skull, a broken jaw, and severe lacerations to both the head and chin area. Detective Gargan conducted a visual examination of the scene, up and down the roadway, and noticed a pair of boots sitting between the curb and the sidewalk on the grass and a fog light in the roadway, which appeared to have come from a car. Detective Gargan took photographs of the scene and recovered those items. Detective Gargan was on the scene for approximately forty-five (45) minutes, and then returned to the police precinct to secure the recovered items in a property room. Detective Gargan continued his investigation the next day, on May 24, 2023, when he went to the house on the corner of Washington Avenue and Roosevelt Street to inquire about a possible video taken from a camera on the house. There, he spoke with a woman, who informed him that only her son had access to the video, and that her son would look at the video. Detective Gargan left the woman his card. Four days later, on May 28, 2022, Detective Gargan received a phone call from the woman’s son, who informed him that he would review the video and would call him back if he saw anything. On May 30, 2022, while working on this investigation, Detective Gargan received a phone call back from the woman’s son, who initially said he did not see anything within an hour prior to the man being found in the street. However, he again called Detective Gargan back later that day, and said that he found the crash on the video after going back almost an hour and a half. Detective Gargan went to the home and obtained a copy of the video, which showed that the victim in this case had been struck by a car. The fog light recovered at the scene had a part number on it, and after running that part number in Google, Detective Gargan learned that it came from a 2001 to 2003 Acura MDX. Detective Gargan then ran a search in the Department of Motor Vehicles (“DMV”) database for 2001 to 2003 Acura MDXs registered in that area. There are license plate readers set up along Washington Avenue, the nearest one being approximately a half-mile north of the incident location. On or about June 7, 2022, Detective Gargan, with the assistance of another detective, ran a search of that license plate reader and found a vehicle going through it within five (5) minutes of the crash. That vehicle’s license plate number was run in a DMV search, and it matched an Acura MDX registered at 324 Whipple Street in Brentwood, which was within one mile of the incident location. On June 7, 2022, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Detective Gargan went to 324 Whipple Street with one other detective, Detective Escalona. Later on, another detective, Detective Jack Balaguera arrived. Detectives Gargan and Escalona sat in their car on one end of the block and Detective Balguera sat in his car, opposite them, on the other end of the block. A gray 2003 Acura MDX was parked in the road in front of 324 Whipple Street. The vehicle’s hood had some scrapes, and the vehicle was missing a lamp on the bottom right side of the car, which appeared to match the lamp found in the street on Washington Avenue on May 23, 2022. The detectives remained at the location of 324 Whipple Street for approximately two hours. During that time, they observed two individuals, both Hispanic males, working on the car. The individuals appeared to be performing repairs on the vehicle. When the detectives left that location, they went back to the precinct and decided they would return there the following day. On June 8, 2022, at approximately 8:30 p.m., Detectives Gargan and Balaguera returned to 324 Whipple Street and knocked on the door of the house. An individual answered the door and Detective Balaguera spoke with him in Spanish. Detective Balaguera identified himself and asked the individual if he knows who drives the Acura parked in front of the house. That person responded in the affirmative, and went back inside the house to retrieve another individual who came to the front door. This second individual, now known to be the Defendant, came to the door and spoke with Detective Balaguera, also in Spanish. Detective Balaguera introduced himself as a detective with the Suffolk County Police Department, and Defendant identified himself as Juan Carlos Morales Guerra. Defendant said that he drives the Acura, but that it is registered in his father-in-law’s name. Defendant agreed to go back to the Third Precinct, and he was transported there by Detective Balaguera, and another detective, Detective White. Defendant was not in handcuffs during this time, but was accompanied in the rear passenger seat by either Detective Balaguera or Detective White. The ride back to the Third Precinct took no more than ten (10) minutes. Once at the Third Precinct, Defendant was brought to one of the interview rooms. Once in the interview room, Defendant was given a place to sit, was offered water, and was free to use a bathroom if he needed. The interview room is approximately eight (8) feet by ten (10) feet, with a table and a chair on one side next to the wall. Attached to the wall next to the chair is a chain with handcuffs on it. The interviewer sits on the other side of the table. Defendant was not handcuffed at this time. At approximately 9:39 p.m., in the interview room, Detective Balaguera, spoke with Defendant, entirely in Spanish, at Defendant’s preference. Detective Balaguera is a department-certified translator, and he held that certification on the day he interviewed Defendant, June 8, 2022. Detective Balaguera was seated in the middle of the table right next to Defendant. Prior to speaking with Defendant, Detective Balaguera read Defendant his constitutional rights. Defendant appeared to understand his rights and never indicated to Detective Balaguera otherwise. Defendant’s understanding of his rights is further indicated by Defendant’s handwritten responses and initials on the rights card, and his initials and signature on the statement itself. Defendant voluntarily waived those rights and agreed to speak with Detective Balaguera without an attorney. Defendant’s conversation with Detective Balaguera lasted approximately ten (10) minutes, and was ultimately reduced to a written statement, signed by Defendant. Defendant’s written statement, in sum and substance, states that Defendant drives the 2003 Acura MDX that that was parked in front of his house; that on May 23, 2022, Defendant left his home at approximately 10:00 p.m. to go to Dunkin’ Donuts at the intersection of Suffolk Avenue and Washington Avenue in Brentwood to buy a box of doughnuts for his children; that while driving southbound on Washington Avenue near Roosevelt Street in Brentwood, he heard a loud bang on the front right side of his car and felt as if he hit someone or something; that he did not see anyone cross the street because it was dark outside and he was possibly distracted by his loud music; that he eventually arrived at Dunkin’ Donuts and then returned home; that the next morning, on May 24, 2022, he noticed that the hood of his Acura was dented, the front right passenger side headlight was pushed in, and the radiator was leaking; and that he did not call the police to report the incident because he was scared. Detective Balaguera read the written statement back to Defendant in Spanish, and Defendant did not indicate any inaccuracies therein. Defendant was advised that he was under arrest and charged with leaving the scene of an accident. Defendant was processed and issued a desk appearance ticket to return to court at a later date. Once issued the desk appearance ticket, Defendant was free to leave, which he did. Defendant was never placed in handcuffs at the Precinct. Defendant challenges the constitutionality of the arrest, as well as the admissibility of his oral statements made at 324 Whipple Street on June 8, 2022 and his oral and written statements made later at Third Precinct on that same date. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DUNAWAY ISSUE In enforcing the constitutionally protected right to be left alone, the level of permissible intrusion by law enforcement officers during street encounters with private citizens is governed by the four-tier analysis as set forth in People v. De Bour (40 NY2d 210 [1976]). The lowest level of intrusion in approaching an individual to request information is permitted where there exists some objective credible reason for the interference not necessarily indicative of criminality (see People v. De Bour, supra; see also People v. Hollman, 79 NY2d 181 [1992]; People v. Wells, 226 AD2d 406 [1996]). The next level of intrusion, the common law right to inquire, is allowable when the police have a “founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and permits a somewhat greater intrusion in that a policeman is entitled to interfere with a citizen to the extent necessary to gain explanatory information, but short of a forcible seizure” (People v. De Bour, supra at 223). Third, a police officer may pursue, stop and detain a person when a reasonable suspicion exists that such person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime (see People v. De Bour, supra; see also CPL 140.50; People v. Martinez, 80 NY2d 444 [1992]; People v. Hollman, supra; People v. Leung, 68 NY2d 734 [1986]). Finally, the fourth level of intrusion permits the arrest and custody of a person where the police have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime (see People v. De Bour, supra; People v. Hollman, supra; see also CPL 140.10; People v. Brown, 256 AD2d 414 [2d Dept 1998]). After determining that the fog lamp found near the scene of the incident belonged to an Acura MDX, and discovering that the license plate picked up by the license plate reader near the scene matched an Acura MDX registered at 324 Whipple Street in Brentwood, the detectives went to that location on June 7, 2022. At that location and on that date, they observed two individuals performing repairs to an Acura MDX parked in the street in front of the house. The next day, June 8, 2022, Detectives Gargan and Balaguera returned to residence and spoke with Defendant. Defendant agreed to come back to the Third Precinct with the detectives. At the Third Precinct, Defendant gave a written statement, effectively admitting that he drove the vehicle on the night of the incident when the victim was struck. Accordingly, there existed probable cause to believe that Defendant committed a crime, and therefore the arrest of Defendant was proper (see People v. De Bour, supra; People v. Hollman, supra; People v. Brown, supra). HUNTLEY ISSUES The record is clear that Defendant’s statements made to Detective Balaguera at 324 Whipple Street, in which Defendant stated, in sum and substance, that he drives the Acura MDX but that it is registered in his father-in-law’s name, were made in response to investigatory questioning by the police and there was no indication that Defendant was in custody at the time such statements were made (see People v. Arcese, 148 AD2d 460 [2d Dept 1989], appeal denied 74 NY2d 661). Accordingly, the Defendant’s oral statements made at 324 Whipple Street will not be suppressed. As to Defendant’s oral and written statements made at the Third Precinct, Defendant made these statements voluntarily, after Detective Balaguera read him the Miranda warnings from a pre-printed document detailing the rights of a defendant in custody. Defendant understood his rights, as indicated by his initials and signature on the rights card and on the statement itself. As established by the record, this Court finds that Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights before making the statements at the Third Precinct (see People v. Washington, 155 AD2d 635, appeal denied 75 NY2d 925; see also People v. Davis, 55 NY2d 731). Accordingly, the statements made by Defendant at the Third Precinct will not be suppressed. Thus, all of Defendant’s statements are admissible and will not be suppressed. The foregoing shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: May 4, 2023
