{"id":21806,"date":"2016-04-21T17:07:52","date_gmt":"2016-04-21T22:07:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=21806"},"modified":"2016-04-21T17:07:52","modified_gmt":"2016-04-21T22:07:52","slug":"ny2-sw-for-house-and-yard-didnt-include-shed-behind-the-house","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=21806","title":{"rendered":"NY2: SW for house and yard didn&#8217;t include shed behind the house"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>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. <a href=\"http:\/\/www.courts.state.ny.us\/reporter\/3dseries\/2016\/2016_03027.htm\">People v. Velez<\/a>, 2016 NY Slip Op 03027, 2016 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2907 (2d Dept. April 20, 2016):<br \/>\n<!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>The defendant&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>Note:<\/strong> Other courts are not so charitable. A search warrant for a house generally includes all outbuildings and vehicle on the curtilage. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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. &hellip; <a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=21806\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-21806","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-warrant-execution"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21806","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=21806"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21806\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":21807,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21806\/revisions\/21807"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=21806"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=21806"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=21806"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}