NY4: Consent form filled out by police wasn’t proof of control of the premises; facts otherwise too vague

Defendant’s consent form was written by the police with boilerplate language, and the consent form is not sufficient evidence of control of the place searched. For all the proof shows, he was just somewhat familiar with the place and there were three bedrooms occupied by others. The conviction is reversed. People v. Buza, 2016 NY Slip Op 07423, 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7305 (4th Dept. Nov. 10, 2016).

Defendant was on 10 years supervised release after doing time for a child porn offense. He’d admitted to friends that he still looked at child pornography and word got back to his probation officer. U.S. Probation did a home visit, and found a flash drive in the bedroom, which defendant and his wife both denied knowledge of or ownership. It was seized. Then he admitted there was child pornography on it that had been downloaded by a virus. Motion to suppress the flash drive denied. There was reasonable suspicion to seize it. United States v. Makeeff, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182185 (S.D.Iowa Feb. 6, 2015).*

This entry was posted in Apparent authority, Probation / Parole search, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.