People v. Brooks
155 A.D.3d 1429
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2017Background
- Defendant sold crack cocaine to an undercover officer twice in 2013; transactions were facilitated by a confidential informant acting as a courier between adjacent hotel rooms.
- Investigators paid for one hotel room and occupied the adjacent room; the room was not registered in defendant’s name.
- Defendant was arrested after the second sale and indicted on two counts each of criminal sale and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
- At trial, the People introduced evidence that the confidential informant had previously sold drugs for defendant in 2005 and earlier in 2013.
- County Court denied suppression of hotel-room evidence, admitted the prior-acts evidence with limiting instructions, refused to disqualify the District Attorney, and defendant was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate 13-year term plus three years postrelease supervision.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Brooks’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of warrantless entry/arrest in hotel room (standing) | Entry/arrest valid because defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the paid, unregistered hotel room | Defendant had Fourth Amendment protection as a hotel guest; evidence should be suppressed | Court found defendant’s minimal, commercial presence (not a guest) gave no legitimate expectation of privacy; suppression denied |
| Admission of prior uncharged drug sales (Molineux evidence) | Prior sales explained why investigators set up the controlled buys and why Brooks came to the hotel; probative for intent and coherent narrative | Prior-acts evidence was prejudicial and should be excluded as propensity evidence | Court admitted the prior-sales evidence as relevant to intent and narrative, with limiting instructions; probative value outweighed prejudice for the 2013 acts |
| Admission of 2005 prior acts (age/cumulative prejudice) | Still probative as part of narrative | 2005 acts were remote and unduly prejudicial | Court acknowledged closer balance but deemed any error harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt |
| Disqualification of District Attorney for prior limited representation | Not applicable; prior limited involvement did not impact current prosecution | DA should be disqualified because he previously appeared in defendant’s 2005 matter | Court refused to disqualify: fleeting prior contact and absent showing of confidential information or actual prejudice, disqualification not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless entry to effect an arrest into a residence restricted by Fourth Amendment)
- Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (no legitimate expectation of privacy for short-term commercial or packeted presence in premises)
- People v. McFall, 72 A.D.3d 1128 (hotel guest entitled to Fourth Amendment protection during rental period)
- People v. McBride, 14 N.Y.3d 440 (limitations on warrantless residential entry to arrest; Fourth Amendment principles)
- People v. Morris, 21 N.Y.3d 588 (uncharged crimes admissible when relevant to issues other than propensity; probative vs. prejudicial balancing)
- Matter of Schumer v. Holtzman, 60 N.Y.2d 46 (disqualification not required absent actual prejudice or substantial risk of abuse of confidences)