The People v. Eric Ibarguen
56
| NY | Oct 14, 2021Background
- Undercover buy‑and‑bust: detective purchased four glassines of heroin from a person called “Spanky.” A plainclothes detective chased the fleeing suspect into a basement apartment and arrested Eric Ibarguen there.
- Ibarguen was an invited dinner guest at the apartment; he swore he was innocent, that he received mail at the premises, and that police used force when arresting him.
- Police secured the apartment overnight after the warrantless entry, sought a search warrant based in part on observations made during that entry, and executed the warrant the next day, recovering one prerecorded $20 bill and an XXL black jacket.
- Ibarguen moved under CPL 710.60 to suppress physical evidence found in the apartment, submitting sworn allegations that he was a lawful invitee with an expectation of privacy; the People opposed, arguing he lacked standing.
- The suppression court denied a Mapp (suppression) hearing, finding insufficient sworn facts to establish standing and noting a warrant had issued; the Appellate Division affirmed and this Court affirmed the order.
- Judge Wilson dissented, arguing Ibarguen’s sworn allegations warranted a suppression hearing and contending the subsequent warrant was tainted by the prior warrantless entry.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Ibarguen’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to a CPL 710.60 suppression (Mapp) hearing | Motion papers did not establish a legitimate privacy interest; summary denial appropriate. | Sworn allegations (dinner guest, mail at address, invitee) suffice to require a hearing. | Denied: court affirmed summary denial under CPL 710.60(3) for inadequate sworn allegations. |
| Whether a social/dinner guest has a reasonable expectation of privacy in host’s home | Short‑term/social visitors are often casual and may lack a protectible expectation. | Social guests (overnight or significant invitees) may have a reasonable privacy expectation and thus may seek suppression. | Majority avoided resolving scope of guest privacy; affirmed on pleading‑sufficiency ground. Dissent would grant a hearing and recognize privacy for dinner guests. |
| Use of evidence obtained after warrant issued following prior warrantless entry | Warrant cures entry; evidence admissible because warrant established probable cause. | Warrant was tainted by the prior unlawful entry and observations made during it; evidence should be suppressed. | Majority did not reach taint/independent‑source merits; noted courts below relied on probable‑cause finding but affirmed on pleading ground. Dissent emphasized taint doctrine and disagreed with relying on the warrant. |
| Preservation of social‑guest claim | Defendant failed to preserve precise legal theory (didn’t cite Olson/Carter) so claim not preserved. | Defendant raised being a lawful invitee and sought a hearing; that preserved the claim. | Majority treated claim as preserved by presentation below; dissent stresses defendant properly preserved and was entitled to a hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rakas v. Illinois, 438 U.S. 128 (U.S. 1978) (abandoned automatic "legitimately on premises" standing; focus on defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (privacy expectation test: what society is prepared to recognize as reasonable)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1990) (overnight guests have a legitimate expectation of privacy)
- Carter v. United States, 525 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (commercial short‑term guests lacked expectation; left intermediate guest categories unclear)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961) (exclusionary rule for unlawfully obtained evidence)
- Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204 (U.S. 1981) (police need a search warrant to enter third‑party home to arrest another)
- Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1969) (evidence discovered in unlawful house search cannot form basis for warrant or testimony against homeowner)
- People v. Mendoza, 82 N.Y.2d 415 (N.Y. 1993) (CPL 710.60: sworn allegations must be sufficient on the face of the pleadings to warrant a suppression hearing)
- People v. Jose, 94 N.Y.2d 844 (N.Y. 1999) (possession of apartment key warranted remittal for suppression hearing on standing/expectation)
- People v. Burton, 6 N.Y.3d 584 (N.Y. 2006) (defendant may rely on People’s proof to bolster allegations seeking a hearing)