Opinion
March 8, 1993
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Hurley, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Since the defendant was arrested outside her home, in a police vehicle while en route to the precinct, no Payton issue is presented (see, People v. Roe, 73 N.Y.2d 1004; People v. Rosario, 186 A.D.2d 598; cf., Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573).
The testimony adduced at the suppression hearing supports the hearing court's determination that the detective properly advised the defendant of her Miranda rights directly from the standard card in the police vehicle en route to the precinct house (see, People v. Gonzalez, 55 N.Y.2d 720, cert denied 456 U.S. 1010). Moreover, while we note that when a suspect exercises her right to remain silent, her decision must be "scrupulously honored" (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 473-474; People v. Kinnard, 62 N.Y.2d 910), the hearing testimony does not indicate that the defendant invoked her right to remain silent in this case.
The suppression court properly found that the defendant's right to counsel did not "indelibly" attach prior to her waiver of that right, as the hearing evidence did not indicate that an attorney representing the defendant had entered this criminal proceeding (People v. Bing, 76 N.Y.2d 331, 339; People v. Hobson, 39 N.Y.2d 479, 481). A suspect's right to counsel does not attach where he or she seeks only information and not representation from an attorney (see, People v. Roe, 73 N.Y.2d 1004, supra).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Eiber and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.