NY2: Unjustified entry into back yard violated curtilage

NYPD and NYFD responded to a call about a house fire in Queens at a particular address and found nothing. They didn’t even smell smoke. They drove around and parked and went down defendant’s driveway and found him in his backyard in his car smoking a blunt. He also had a gun in the car. The backyard was curtilage, and the police had no emergency basis for the entry. The motion to suppress should have been granted. People v. Theodore, 2014 NY Slip Op 1025, 114 A.D.3d 814, 980 N.Y.S.2d 148 (2d Dept. 2014):

Consideration of these factors in connection with the evidence in this record, including two photographs of a portion of the subject premises, compels us to conclude that the defendant’s rear yard was within the curtilage of the home. The rear yard was in close proximity to the home, shielded from view by those on the street, and within the natural and artificial barriers enclosing the home. This physical arrangement made manifest the defendant’s expectation of privacy, and that expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable (see People v Saurini, 201 AD2d 869; People v Abruzzi, 52 AD2d 499, affd 42 NY2d 813; United States v Wells, 648 F3d 671, 677; United States v Howe, 414 Fed Appx 579, 581; Lundstrom v Romero, 616 F3d 1108, 1128-1129; United States v Romero-Bustamente, 337 F3d 1104, 1108; Daughenbraudh v City of Tiffin, 150 F3d 594, 601-602; Quintana v Commonwealth of Kentucky, 276 SW3d 753, 760 [Ky]; Kamins, 1-6 New York Search & Seizure § 6.03[4]). Therefore, since Detective Anderson conducted a search without a warrant when he entered the defendant’s rear yard, the People were required to demonstrate that his entry was justified under some exception to the warrant requirement (see People v Rodriguez, 77 AD3d 280, 282-283).

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.