People v. Henley, 53 N.Y.2d 403 (1981)

An individual’s consent to a search is invalid if it is the product of an illegal detention; however, a defendant cannot assert the violation of another person’s Fourth Amendment rights to challenge the validity of a search.

Summary

Two brothers, Jim Henley, Jr., and Willie Norman Henley, were arrested after police found stolen goods in their apartment. Jim was stopped near the scene of a burglary and brought to the apartment where he consented to a search. Willie was present in the apartment during the search. The court held that Jim’s consent was invalid because it followed an illegal detention, as police lacked probable cause to detain him initially. Therefore, the evidence seized should be suppressed as to Jim. However, Willie could not claim the violation of Jim’s rights; thus, the search was valid as to him.

Facts

Around 4:00 AM, police received a call about a burglary at Mercury Radio and Battery Company. Officer Szczur saw Jim Henley, Jr., walking from a yard onto the street about a block away from the reported burglary. Jim had nothing in his hands. Officer Szczur stopped Jim, who said he was going to buy a loaf of bread. Szczur, finding no open stores, took Jim to the scene of the burglary and then to his residence at 24 Spiess Street. Jim initially gave the wrong apartment, but then directed the officers to the upstairs apartment. Other officers arrived, and Jim was arrested. He consented to a search of the apartment. Willie Norman Henley, Jim’s brother, was present in the apartment. During the search, officers found boxes stamped with the name of Mercury Radio and Battery Company.

Procedural History

Jim and Willie were indicted for burglary and grand larceny. Willie was also charged with possession of a controlled substance. Willie was charged under a separate indictment with possession of burglar’s tools and attempted burglary related to an earlier incident. The trial court denied the motion to suppress the evidence seized at the apartment. Jim pleaded guilty to attempted burglary, and Willie pleaded guilty to grand larceny and criminal trespass, resolving all charges. The Appellate Division affirmed all convictions. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed Willie’s convictions but reversed Jim’s.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Jim Henley, Jr.’s, consent to the search of the apartment was valid, given that he was detained and transported to the apartment without probable cause.
2. Whether Willie Norman Henley can challenge the validity of the search of the apartment based on the violation of his brother’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Holding

1. No, because Jim Henley, Jr.’s, consent to the search was tainted by his illegal custodial detention and transportation, rendering the consent invalid.
2. No, because Willie Norman Henley cannot assert the violation of his brother’s Fourth Amendment rights to challenge the validity of the search.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that while Officer Szczur had reasonable suspicion to stop and question Jim, there was no probable cause to take him into custody and transport him to his residence. Jim’s presence near the burglary scene and his statement about buying bread did not provide probable cause to link him to the crime. Because the custodial detention and transportation violated Jim’s Fourth Amendment rights, his subsequent consent to the search was invalid. The court stated, “The custodial detention and transportation having violated Henley, Jr.’s, constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable seizure, his subsequent consent to the police to enter the upstairs apartment was fatally tainted.” Consequently, the evidence seized should have been suppressed as to Jim.

However, the court held that Willie could not challenge the search’s validity based on the violation of his brother’s rights. Willie lacked standing to assert that Jim’s illegal detention invalidated the consent to search. Absent the illegal detention, there was no evidence to suggest that Jim’s consent was involuntary. Therefore, the entry into the apartment was authorized as to Willie, and the seizure of evidence did not violate his constitutional rights.