People v. Hill
153 A.D.3d 413
N.Y. App. Div.2017Background
- Victim reported an elevator robbery by a masked black male in his twenties who fired a shot downward; victim surrendered rings, a necklace, license and $60. No evidence of a bullet was found at scene.
- Later the detective learned of a man with a leg gunshot wound at a hospital; at the ER the detective seized two paper bags under defendant’s bed without consent and removed clothing from which a ring and the victim’s license were recovered.
- The detective interviewed defendant’s girlfriend, obtained car keys (car belonged to defendant’s aunt), inventoried and later searched the vehicle at the precinct and found a second ring identified by the victim.
- Police then went to defendant’s basement apartment; defendant’s uncle signed a written consent form allowing a search. Officers recovered a Taser and BB gun from defendant’s living area and a revolver from an unsecured pipe in an area between the outer gate and the apartment.
- On suppression motion the court suppressed only the evidence seized from the hospital bags (finding no probable cause/arrest at that time), denied suppression of the vehicle evidence (defendant lacked standing and aunt consented) and denied suppression of the gun (court found defendant lacked standing for apartment or uncle’s consent valid).
- At trial defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree; the Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, holding defendant had standing to challenge the apartment search but consent by the uncle was voluntary and the subsequent searches were independent of the illegal hospital seizure.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Jones’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge apartment search | Defendant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in apartment/curtilage | Defendant lived "on and off", stored clothes, received mail—had privacy interest | Defendant had standing to challenge apartment search (court error to deny standing) |
| Standing to challenge vehicle search | Defendant lacked standing; did not own/drive car; keys alone insufficient | Car use implied by girlfriend having keys; vehicle connected to defendant | Defendant lacked standing to challenge vehicle search (denial affirmed) |
| Voluntariness of uncle’s consent to search apartment | Consent was voluntary: not in custody, officers unarmed, written form signed | Consent coerced/obtained after officers forced entry; uncle feared police; signed under duress | Consent was voluntary under totality of circumstances; search lawful |
| Fruit of illegal hospital seizure / independent source | Subsequent searches were attenuated and not the product of the illegal ER search; police would have pursued investigation independently | ER seizure produced ID/ring that led to girlfriend interview, keys, and searches; evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree | Independent source/attenuation applies; vehicle and apartment evidence admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Hunter, 17 NY3d 725 (People must timely object to standing to preserve issue)
- People v Stith, 69 NY2d 313 (standing preservation principles)
- People v Ramirez-Portoreal, 88 NY2d 99 (legitimate expectation of privacy test for standing)
- People v Burton, 6 NY3d 584 (defendant may rely on People’s case to establish standing)
- People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122 (consent voluntariness totality-of-circumstances analysis)
- People v Arnau, 58 NY2d 27 (independent source rule limits exclusionary rule)
- People v Burr, 70 NY2d 354 (consideration of exploitation of illegality when applying independent source rule)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (fruit of the poisonous tree/attenuation principles)