New York Law Review

Tag: People v. King

  • People v. King, 75 N.Y.2d 924 (1990): Establishing Standing to Challenge a Search

    People v. King, 75 N.Y.2d 924 (1990)

    A defendant seeking to suppress evidence obtained through a search must demonstrate a legitimate personal expectation of privacy in the area or item searched, considering factors beyond mere possession, such as precautions taken to maintain privacy and the right to exclude others.

    Summary

    King was charged with drug possession offenses after a bag containing narcotics was discovered by police. King and his companion initially denied ownership of the bag. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s suppression of the evidence, holding that King failed to establish standing to challenge the search. While the attorney’s affirmation claimed King had a possessory interest, and a police officer saw King holding the bag earlier, the Court emphasized that possessing an item alone is insufficient to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy; King needed to demonstrate he took steps to maintain privacy and had the right to exclude others.

    Facts

    Port Authority police officers observed King and a companion who “appeared relatively young.” King and his companion separated, heading for different buses. An officer approached the companion, who dropped a black bag and denied ownership. King was brought back, and he also denied owning the bag. A pat-down of the companion revealed a bullet, leading the officers to search the bag, where they found narcotics.

    Procedural History

    The hearing court granted King’s motion to suppress the evidence seized from the bag, finding that the search was unlawful and that King had standing to challenge it. The Appellate Division affirmed. The People appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the defendant established a legitimate expectation of privacy in the bag such that he had standing to challenge the search that revealed the narcotics.

    Holding

    No, because the defendant did not demonstrate a sufficient expectation of privacy in the bag beyond simply showing prior possession.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals held that the lower courts erred in finding that King had standing to seek suppression of the evidence. The Court reiterated that a defendant has the burden of establishing standing by demonstrating a personal, legitimate expectation of privacy. While the defendant can use evidence from the People’s case to meet this burden, the record here was insufficient. The Court emphasized that showing a possessory interest alone is not determinative. Instead, courts must consider factors such as whether the defendant took precautions to maintain privacy and whether the defendant had the right to exclude others from access. The court cited People v. Rodriguez, 69 N.Y.2d 159, 163, stating that “‘[a] showing of a possessory or proprietary interest in the item seized by itself…is not the determinative factor on the issue of standing’”. Even if the defendant once possessed the bag, his denial of ownership suggested a lack of intent to maintain privacy. The court found that the burden was on the defendant to establish a legitimate expectation of privacy under the circumstances and that he failed to do so. Therefore, the motion to suppress should have been denied.

  • People v. King, 61 N.Y.2d 550 (1984): Definition of ‘Entry’ and ‘Building’ for Burglary

    People v. King, 61 N.Y.2d 550 (1984)

    For the crime of burglary, entry into a building occurs when a person or any part of their body intrudes within the building, and a recessed entry area of a store, enclosed by display windows, a door, a roof, and a security gate, can be considered part of the ‘building’.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that the element of ‘entry’ in burglary is satisfied when any part of a person’s body intrudes into the building. The Court also determined that a recessed vestibule enclosed by display windows, a roof, and a security gate constitutes part of the ‘building’ for burglary purposes. The defendant was observed tampering with a metal gate covering a jewelry store vestibule, creating a hole. The Court affirmed the conviction for attempted burglary, finding that the defendant’s actions constituted an attempted entry into a building.

    Facts

    Two police officers observed the defendant in front of a jewelry store at 4:30 a.m. The store had a recessed vestibule behind a metal security gate. The officers saw the defendant crouched down, pulling and pushing at the gate while holding an object. After noticing the officers, the defendant fled. The officers apprehended him, and upon returning to the store, found that the gate had been cut, creating a one-foot square hole. The defendant had a claw hammer in his pocket.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was convicted of attempted burglary in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment without opinion. The case was then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the ‘entry’ element of burglary requires the intrusion of the entire body into the building?

    2. Whether the recessed vestibule of the jewelry store constitutes a ‘building’ within the meaning of the Penal Law?

    Holding

    1. No, because the ‘entry’ element of burglary is satisfied when any part of a person’s body intrudes within the building.

    2. Yes, because the recessed vestibule, enclosed by the security gate and other structures, is functionally part of the building under the Penal Law.

    Court’s Reasoning

    Regarding the ‘entry’ element, the court noted that while the Penal Law does not explicitly define ‘entry’, the common law definition, which requires only the insertion of any part of the body, should still apply unless there’s a clear legislative intent to change it. The court stated, “The presumption is that no change from the rule of common law is intended, ‘unless the enactment is clear and explicit in that direction’.” Since the legislature did not indicate an intent to narrow the definition of “entry,” the common-law definition was upheld.

    As to whether the vestibule constitutes a ‘building’, the court referenced Penal Law § 140.00(2), which defines a building as including “any structure… used by persons for carrying on business therein.” The court reasoned that the presence of the security gate, enclosing the vestibule, makes the vestibule “functionally indistinguishable from the space inside the display cases or the rest of the store.” Therefore, it falls within the statutory definition of a building.

    The Court emphasized that the defendant was in a position to reach into the vestibule and steal goods, and his inability to fit his entire body through the hole did not negate the attempted burglary charge. The court reasoned that a successful burglary was within his capability.