People v. Watson, 955 N.Y.2d 411

Two officers responded to a domestic dispute at the defendant's residence around 8:50 p.m. on October 23, 2009; the girlfriend made the 911 call.
Officers separated the couple for interviews; one officer spoke with the girlfriend inside, who led him to a closet where three guns and ammunition were found.
The defendant was arrested; the girlfriend signed a written consent to the search; the defendant waived Miranda rights and wrote a statement.
The defendant moved to suppress the physical evidence and the written statement; the hearing court granted the motion; People appealed.
The core legal issue concerns whether a co-occupant's consent suffices when the other occupier objects, and what the governing standard is after Randolph and Lopez.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether girlfriend's consent valid when defendant objects	People: consent of a co-occupant is valid; objecting co-occupant's objection does not invalidate it if not removed to seek consent.	Defendant: Randolph requires consent from all objecting co-occupants; presence and objection render consent insufficient.	Consent from girlfriend valid; defendant's objection not required to negate.
Whether the written statement is admissible given the search	People: search was lawful; statement should not be suppressed as the fruit of a poisonous tree.	Defendant: if the search were invalid, the statement would be tainted.	Statement admissible; suppression reversed only if search invalid.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (searches require a warrant absent a major exception)
People v. Cosme, 48 N.Y.2d 286 (N.Y. 1979) (consent by one with authority permits warrantless search)
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (U.S. 2006) (co-occupant's express objection defeats other's consent)
United States v. Lopez, 547 F.3d 397 (2d Cir. 2008) (cannot rely on co-occupant's consent when objector present)
United States v. Parker, 469 F.3d 1074 (2006) (policy on objecting occupant and consent flow)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine)
People v. Mais, 71 A.D.3d 1163 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010) (precedent on suppression and admissibility)