People v. Taylor, 55 N.Y.2d 524 (1982)
r
r
The definition of “home” within the meaning of the exception to New York’s firearm possession laws (Penal Law § 265.02(4)) extends to facilities shared by several unrelated persons, provided access is controlled or limited, but does not encompass areas accessible to the public or a substantial group of persons.
r
r
Summary
r
The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a men’s shelter lobby constituted a “home” for purposes of an exception to a firearm possession law. The defendant was arrested in the lobby of a men’s shelter with a loaded firearm. He argued that because the shelter was his home, he should have been charged with a misdemeanor instead of a felony. The Court held that the shelter lobby, accessible to a large number of people, did not qualify as his “home” under the statute, affirming his felony conviction. The Court emphasized the lack of privacy in a public area as the key factor.
r
r
Facts
r
The defendant was a member of the Permanent Population Unit of a men’s shelter for 19 months. He regularly ate meals, used recreational facilities, received mail, and voted from that address. He sometimes slept at a hotel provided by the shelter, in a common “big room,” or occasionally in parks or hallways. He was arrested in the shelter lobby after stepping out of the elevator, in possession of a loaded revolver. The lobby was a high-traffic area used by 900-1,200 shelter clients daily, as well as other members of the public.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The defendant was charged with felony possession of a loaded firearm. At trial, he argued the shelter was his home, thus only a misdemeanor applied. The trial court instructed the jury on the definition of “home,” referencing the Penal Law’s definition of “public place.” The jury convicted him of felony possession. The Appellate Division affirmed, with one dissenting Justice. The appeal reached the New York Court of Appeals by permission of the dissenting Justice.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether the lobby of a men’s shelter, accessible to a large number of people, constitutes a person’s “home” for the purpose of the exception in Penal Law § 265.02(4) regarding possession of a loaded firearm.
r
r
Holding
r
1. No, because the legislative intent of the “home” exception is to protect an individual’s right to possess a firearm for self-defense in a place where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which does not extend to areas with unlimited public access.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court reasoned that the key factor in determining whether a place qualifies as a “home” under the statute is the expectation of privacy. The Court noted that prior cases addressing this issue turned on whether the possessor of the weapon was entitled to privacy in the area where they were apprehended. The court stated, “The very antithesis of privacy is unlimited public access, no matter how closely related the possessor, as a subjective matter, may feel to the particular area as part of what he calls ‘home,’ or the extent to which he uses the area as one would a part of his home.” Because the shelter lobby had unlimited public access, the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy there. The Court distinguished this situation from cases involving common areas shared by a limited group of residents, where a reasonable expectation of privacy might exist. The Court found that the trial court’s charge, while referencing the definition of