NY, Kings Co.: Def had a REP in his space in a homeless shelter

Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his space in a homeless shelter against a warrantless entry. People v. Maquila, 2025 NY Slip Op 25270, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 9887 (Kings Co. Dec. 17, 2025):

Drawing on the few state and federal courts that have addressed this issue, and the need for guidance, the court finds the following factors relevant to address both the objective and subjective aspects of the reasonable expectation of privacy test: (1) whether the facility is state or privately run, (2) whether the facility has a stated or posted policy regarding searches, (3) the physical layout of the facility, (4) how the space or object in questions is used, (5) actions taken by the occupant to exhibit an actual expectation of privacy and (5) the policies and procedures used to screen individuals entering and leaving the facility.

These factors lean in favor of finding a reasonable expectation of privacy. In Robinson, there were no doors or locks preventing entry onto the rooms in which the shelter’s inhabitants were assigned. Here, the setup explicitly included a locked room for whom the defendant was the only assigned occupant; and the record supports the conclusion that the assigned space had a door and a lock. The testimony regarding Ms. Baker, the alleged manager at the facility, makes clear that no inquiries were made regarding Ms. Baker’s authority. None of the case law stands for the proposition that any person present at a location has blanket authority to permit a search of an occupant’s constitutionally protected space. It’s also abundantly clear that Ms. Baker and the defendant were in no way cohabitating.

The defendant testified that he heard two knocks at his door, then heard the doorknob jiggle before seeing the door open and the officers entering his room. He stated he was in bed, not fully clothed and was ordered to get dressed. There is some disagreement about whether the officers physically entered the room or stood at the threshold. It makes no difference for our analysis as the opening of the door is what disturbed the reasonable expectation of privacy; its irrelevant whether the officer stepped inside and then ordered the defendant to get dressed; or stood at the threshold after having the manager open the door and then ordered the defendant to get dressed and step out of the room.

The court finds that the police’s actions violated the Payton rule prohibiting warrantless entry into a home to conduct an arrest. Any physical evidence seized as a result must be suppressed.