Opinion
March 22, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mullen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court properly denied suppression of the defendant's confessions based on his claim that they were the fruit of an unlawful arrest. We find that a reasonable person, innocent of any crime and in the defendant's position would not have believed himself to be in custody during the initial stages of questioning by the police (see, People v. Yukl, 25 N.Y.2d 585, cert denied 400 U.S. 851). In addition, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that his confession was elicited in violation of his constitutional rights. The defendant was given his Miranda warnings (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436) prior to entering the police vehicle and again upon his arrival at headquarters and he knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional rights. Although the defendant was at the police headquarters for more than two hours before making his first inculpatory statement, the readministration of the Miranda warnings was not required since the questioning was continuous and the confession was made within a reasonable time after the defendant's waiver of his constitutional rights (see, People v. Glinsman, 107 A.D.2d 710).
The sentence imposed was not excessive.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.