NY2: SW for house and yard didn’t include shed behind the house

Where the search warrant was for the residence and yard, a shed on the yard could not be searched. Thus, defense counsel was ineffective for not challenging the search. Reversed. People v. Velez, 2016 NY Slip Op 03027, 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2907 (2d Dept. April 20, 2016):

The defendant’s contention that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the warrantless Here, the search of the shed exceeded the scope of the warrant, which authorized the search of the defendant’s residence and yard only (see People v Caruso, 174 AD2d 1051). Defense counsel had everything to gain and nothing to lose by moving to suppress the evidence seized during the warrantless search of the shed (see People v Sinatra, 89 AD2d 913, 915; People v Donovan, 184 AD2d 654, 655), and it appears that defense counsel’s omission vitiated a viable defense, causing actual prejudice to the defendant (see People v Sullivan, 153 AD2d 223; People v Morris, 100 AD2d 630, affd 64 NY2d 803). Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial.

Note: Other courts are not so charitable. A search warrant for a house generally includes all outbuildings and vehicle on the curtilage.