109 A.D.3d 937
N.Y. App. Div.2013Background
- Defendant appeals a conviction for second-degree burglary (seven counts) and criminal possession of stolen property following a jury verdict.
- Appeal challenging denial of omnibus suppression motion seeking to suppress physical evidence and statements.
- December 2007 investigation of Brooklyn burglaries led to parole officer facilitating a home visit to defendant's apartment with police presence.
- Parole officer, detectives, and a sergeant entered the apartment; a ring matching a burglary item was found; Miranda warnings were given.
- Defendant admitted to 9 of 12 burglaries after being taken to the police station.
- Supreme Court ruled entry had no parole-related objective but found consent voluntary and suppressed evidence; appellate court vacated and ordered new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the entry into the home voluntary consent? | People argued consent valid under implied authority. | Cons ent not voluntary due to false representations and parolee duties. | Consent not voluntary; suppression warranted |
| Is the plain-view seizure valid if entry was unlawful? | Plain view justified seizure. | Entry unlawful; plain-view exception not applicable. | Plain-view seizure invalid; suppress evidence |
| Can warrantless entry be justified by diminished privacy of a parolee? | Parolee status permits entry for parole duties. | No valid basis; jurisdictional bar to review this issue. | Issue not reached; jurisdictional bar applies |
| Should defendant's statements be suppressed as fruit of an illegal seizure? | Statements argued admissible under consent/entry. | Statements tainted by unlawful entry and coercion. | Statements suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122 (NY 1976) (consent must be voluntary; true act of free will)
- Schneckloth v Bustamonte, 412 US 218 (U.S. 1973) (voluntariness of consent; cannot be merely acquiescence)
- Bumper v North Carolina, 391 US 543 (U.S. 1968) (consent not voluntary where authority claimed coercively)
- Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine; suppression remedy)
- People v Torres, 45 AD2d 185 (N.Y. App. Div. 1974) (false representations undermine voluntary consent)
- People v Jefferson, 43 AD2d 112 (N.Y. App. Div. 1973) (concept of coerced entry and consent)
- People v Matta, 76 AD2d 844 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980) (consent and entry standards in suppression analysis)