Two men, including the owner, were sitting in a car in the garage when someone approached from behind and ordered them to get out and not to turn around.
The owner of the car originally testified that he saw the attacker holding a gun, but he indicated that he had not looked the attacker’s hand. The owner stated that he comply the attacker’s command and stepped out of his car. He then saw the car being driven away. But, he was unable to make an identification of the attacker.
On the same morning, one detective was performing a tour of duty with two colleagues. They were working in civilian clothes and operating out of an unmarked detective cruiser. At around 1:30 a.m., they received a radio alarm for the alleged robbery and DWI. The report asserted that the car was being operated by a black male, approximately 23 years old, wearing a full length grayish coat and armed with a hand gun.
At 2:45 a.m., the detective spotted the car. He then observed the black male seated behind the steering wheel, about 20-25 years of age and wearing the described coat. When the car started up, the detective followed the vehicle. Shortly thereafter, the robbed car stopped for a red light, at which point the detective pulled up behind it. He and his two fellow officers come out from their vehicle and walked toward the car with their guns being drawn. The traffic light changed before they reached the car and it began to move. One of the detectives yelled to stop the car. At the same time, two or three patrol cars containing four to six officers arrived at the scene, blocking the car.
According to the testimony, the detective approached the car, of which the offender was the only occupant, he identified himself as a police officer and asked the offender to present his license and registration. The offender removed a vehicle insurance card from the glove compartment and showed it to the officer. The officer asked the offender if he was the owner of the car and he replied that he was not the owner of the car. DWI was suspected.
Apparently, the offender was unable to present a license and registration or any other identification, and was thereupon placed under arrest and taken to the station. Upon arriving at the precinct, the offender was informed of his Miranda rights for the first time. He indicated that he understood his rights and that he was willing to answer the officer’s questions without his attorney.
Subsequently, the offender was then rearrested and charged with the crime of possession of stolen property. DUI was not charged.
Consequently, the offender was indicted for two counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of grand larceny in the second degree. Based on records, count one of the indictment alleged that the offender had forcibly stolen the car from the owner and in the course thereof had used and threatened the immediate use of a dangerous weapon. Moreover, the count two of the indictment alleged that in the course of the stealing, the offender had shown what appeared to be a pistol, revolver or other firearm.
The offender subsequently moved to restrain any statements made by him at the scene, as well as at the precinct, on the ground that he had not been informed of his Miranda rights prior questioning. But, the court denied the motion. The court further ordered that the offender’s statements made at the precinct were admissible because it has been made after he had been advised of his rights.
Consequently, the court ordered that a new trial must be limited to the counts supported by the evidence, to wit, robbery in the third degree and grand larceny in the second degree, or any lesser included crimes.
Life is and will never be simple that is why some pine for easy money. If you have been involved in a crime of stealing, you can seek legal representation from the Kings County Robbery Attorney. At Stephen Bilkis and Associate office, they will offer you the optimum legal assistance with the help of their finest Kings County Criminal Lawyer.