People v. Gardner

Nov 9, 2007
Versions:45 A.D.3d 1371
844 N.Y.S.2d 803

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [4]), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in refusing to suppress physical evidence and other information obtained as a result of the illegal entry into the home of a third party, resulting in his warrantless arrest. We reject that contention. “Ordinarily, a warrant is required to arrest a suspect in his [or her] home or in a place where he [or she] has a reasonable expectation of privacy” (People v Matus, 166 AD2d 464, 465 [1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 1022 [1990], citing Payton v New York, 445 US 573 [1980]). Indeed, “[a] warrantless arrest in a suspect‘s home or a place in which [the suspect] has a reasonable expectation of privacy is prohibited absent exigent circumstances or consent” (People v Long, 124 AD2d 1016, 1017 [1986]). Here, the suppression court determined that the third party consented to the entry of the police into the home, and we see no reason to disturb that determination (see generally People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761 [1977]). Present—Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Smith, Lunn and Pine, JJ.