NY3: Entry into def’s stairwell was apparently illegal, but officers knocked at the door at the top of the stairs and got consent; this was attenuated

Officers entered the stairwell up to defendant’s second floor apartment. It was contended that the entry was unreasonable because the stairwell was part of defendant’s tenancy. At the top of the stairs, however, officers knocked and gained consent to enter. The occupants had a history of running, and an officer was out back, just in case. “Finally, although it does not purge the illegality of the officers’ entrance into the stairwell of defendant’s apartment, it is relevant to the attenuation analysis that there was a second door at the top of the stairway separating the interior of defendant’s apartment. This is not a case where police officers entered directly into the main area of defendant’s apartment and began searching, but rather they had to stop, knock and seek consent from defendant prior to entering the main living area of the apartment …. Thus, given that there ‘was no evidence that the illegal entry was undertaken for the purpose of obtaining consent or seizing the fruits of the search …, the alleged police misconduct here — walking through an unlocked [first floor] door into a [stairwell], before knocking on an interior door — is not so flagrantly intrusive on personal privacy that its taint cannot be dissipated.’.” People v. Crispell, 2024 NY Slip Op 00004, 2024 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 40 (3rd Dept. Jan. 4, 2024).

When there is a gun and the government wants to attempt to see if defendant’s DNA is on it, the cases go both ways: Should there be DNA on the gun first to compel defendant to submit to a DNA test? Here they didn’t know. Getting the warrant for DNA from defendant to see if it matches DNA not yet looked for is reasonable and done in good faith. United States v. Alvin, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231598 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 15, 2023) (R&R).*

This entry was posted in Attenuation, Exclusionary rule. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.