Brief (“Pet’r Pro Se App. Br. at 14”), Resp’t Ex. B. Linnen has submitted in support of this claim a Buffalo Police Department internal policy document titled, “GUIDELINES VIDEO/AUDIOTAPING OF SUSPECT INTERVIEWS,” see Appendix to Petitioner’s Pro Se Supplemental Appellate Brief, Resp’t Ex. B. Linnen asserts that this document “mandat[ed] procedures that would allow for the recording of suspect interviews” and that the police failed to substantially comply with the guideline because “[t]he police never asked the defendant if he wanted the session taped” Pet’r Pro Se App. Br. at 16, 17, Resp’t Ex. B. Linnen has not asserted an error of New York state case law or the New York state constitution. E.g., People v. Kunz, 31 A.D.3d 1191, 817 N.Y.S.2d 824, 824 (App. Div. 4th Dept.2006) (<HOLDING>) (quoting People v. Falkenstein, 288 A.D.2d
holding analysts statements insufficient to satisfy particularity requirements because plaintiffs failed to identify with specificity the statements made by a particular defendant or describe how those statements were false or misleading holding that the trial court properly refused to suppress statements made by defendant to the police on the ground that the interrogation resulting in those statements was not electronically recorded since  there is no federal or state due process requirement that interrogations and confessions be electronically recorded  holding that a police officers notes were relevant as prior and possibly inconsistent statements made and recorded by the witness holding that the rule of completeness applies only to writings or recorded statements not to conversations holding that tjhere is no implicit requirement that the statements be made directly to or even be received by the federal department or agency in question