People v. Rice
2022 NY Slip Op 02437
| N.Y. App. Div. | 2022Background
- On July 12, 2017, officers driving by a boarded-up, vacant house observed a group in the backyard smoking marijuana and smelling of marijuana. "No Trespassing" signs were posted on the vacant property.
- Officers approached through an open gate; they saw the defendant walk to the back of the vacant house carrying an object and return empty‑handed.
- An officer spotted a backpack at the side/back of the vacant house, retrieved it, asked if it belonged to anyone, and, receiving no claim, opened it and found a firearm.
- The defendant and others were arrested; at the station the defendant said the backpack and gun were his. He was indicted for, inter alia, second‑degree criminal possession of a weapon.
- Defendant moved to suppress the physical evidence and his statement as products of unlawful police conduct. After a hearing the trial court denied suppression; this Court remitted for clarification and the trial court reaffirmed denial. The Appellate Division affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant has standing to challenge the officers' warrantless entry onto the curtilage of the vacant house | Defendant was a trespasser on the vacant property and therefore lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy | Defendant was a guest at the neighboring house that shared a driveway and thus had a privacy interest in the shared area | Held: Defendant lacked standing; he was on the vacant house property as a trespasser, so he cannot challenge the entry |
| Whether the backpack search was unlawful or the backpack was abandoned | The People argued the backpack was abandoned: it was left on the vacant property and no one claimed it when asked, so any expectation of privacy was waived | Defendant argued the search was unlawful and any alleged abandonment was coerced or did not occur | Held: The People proved abandonment (voluntary divestment and no claim when asked); abandonment was not coerced and the search was lawful; discovery of the gun provided probable cause |
| Whether the defendant’s stationhouse statement should be suppressed as fruit of unlawful police conduct | Statement is admissible because the physical search and arrest were lawful (no coercion, abandonment justified, probable cause existed) | Statement was tainted by the alleged unlawful entry/search and thus should be suppressed | Held: Statement admissible because it was not the product of unlawful police activity—the underlying search and seizure were lawful under the court’s findings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v De Bour, 40 N.Y.2d 210 (establishes tiers of police investigatory authority/common‑law right of inquiry)
- Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (standing to challenge searches requires legitimate expectation of privacy)
- Collins v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 1663 (physical intrusion onto curtilage to obtain information is a search)
- Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (entry onto curtilage to conduct a search may violate Fourth Amendment)
- People v Ramirez‑Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d 99 (abandonment, waiver of privacy, and burden on People to prove abandonment)
- People v McIntosh, 96 N.Y.2d 521 (application of De Bour/common‑law right of inquiry in New York)
- People v Santiago, 176 A.D.3d 744 (limited privacy expectations for guests in neighboring/shared areas)