People v. Scully, 16 N.Y.3d 862 (2011)

A defendant seeking to suppress evidence obtained during a search must demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises and provide factual allegations that the search was not legally justified.

Summary

Ranee Scully was arrested after police, executing a search warrant, found a weapon on his person and drugs in an apartment he was staying in. Scully moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause. The New York Court of Appeals held that Scully failed to establish standing to challenge the search of the apartment because he didn’t assert a privacy interest in it. Additionally, he didn’t provide sufficient factual allegations to support his claim that the search of his person was unlawful, beyond asserting the warrant lacked probable cause. Thus, the Court affirmed the lower court’s denial of his motion to suppress.

Facts

An investigator obtained a warrant to search a specific apartment for drugs and weapons, also including “any other person who may be found” with such items. Upon executing the warrant, the investigator encountered Scully at the entrance, who possessed a loaded weapon and a large sum of cash. Other officers searched the apartment, finding drugs and drug paraphernalia. Scully, after being Mirandized, admitted to possessing the weapon but denied knowledge of the drugs.

Procedural History

Scully was indicted on weapon and drug charges. He moved to suppress the evidence, claiming the warrant lacked probable cause concerning him. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. Scully was convicted in absentia. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, and Scully appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Scully was entitled to a suppression hearing regarding the weapon found on his person, based on his claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause.

2. Whether Scully had standing to challenge the search of the apartment where drugs were found.

Holding

1. No, because Scully did not provide sufficient factual allegations to support his claim that probable cause was lacking to search him, beyond asserting the warrant’s deficiency.

2. No, because Scully did not assert a personal legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched apartment.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on precedent establishing that a defendant must demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched area to challenge a search’s validity. The Court cited People v. Burton, noting that merely claiming contraband was recovered doesn’t create a factual issue. The defendant must also assert the search was legally unjustified and provide factual allegations to support that contention.

Regarding the weapon, the Court noted Scully only argued the warrant lacked probable cause but didn’t supplement his motion with specific factual allegations supporting this claim. Therefore, he failed to raise a factual issue warranting a hearing.

Regarding the apartment search, the Court cited People v. Wesley, stating a defendant must demonstrate a personal legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises. Scully only argued the warrant lacked probable cause and that he didn’t match the warrant’s description, failing to assert any privacy interest in the apartment. The Court concluded that without asserting a privacy interest, Scully lacked standing to challenge the apartment search. The court emphasized that “a defendant seeking to challenge a search and seizure… [is] required to demonstrate a personal legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched premises”.