People v. Reilly

Citation195 A.D.2d 95,606 N.Y.S.2d 836
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent-Appellant, v. Kevin REILLY, Appellant-Respondent.
Decision Date20 January 1994
CourtNew York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Charles Guttman, Ithaca, for appellant-respondent.

George M. Dentes, Dist. Atty., Ithaca, for respondent-appellant.

Before CARDONA, P.J., and MERCURE, WHITE, CASEY and WEISS, JJ.

MERCURE, Justice.

Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Tompkins County (Friedlander, J.), rendered September 11, 1992, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree and unlicensed growing of marihuana, and (2) from an order of said court, entered April 21, 1993, which granted defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence, without a hearing, and cross appeals from a judgment of said court, rendered June 4, 1993, which resentenced defendant.

In September 1991, Scott Ferris and Daniel Drew, two deputies from the Tompkins County Sheriff's Department, entered a 10-acre parcel of land owned by defendant. Ferris and Drew gained access to the property by walking over an adjacent field, following the fence along defendant's east line more than 1,400 feet and into a heavily wooded area north of defendant's property, and then traversing a break in the fence line at the rear of defendant's property. They then walked out of the woods and across defendant's property several hundred feet to a cottage behind defendant's residence, where they sniffed the vent of an air conditioner and smelled marihuana. Ferris and Drew proceeded to a "small wooded" area near defendant's residence where they found growing marihuana plants. They thereafter left the property and applied for a search warrant for defendant's premises. Upon executing the warrant, officers from the Sheriff's Department discovered a quantity of marihuana plants, and defendant was arrested and subsequently indicted on charges of criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree and unlicensed growing of marihuana.

Following a hearing, County Court denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized through the search warrant. Defendant then elected to plead guilty to the indictment. In exchange for his plea, defendant was promised that the sentence would not be more than 1 to 3 years' imprisonment. Before sentence was imposed, however, the Court of Appeals decided People v. Scott, 79 N.Y.2d 474, 583 N.Y.S.2d 920, 593 N.E.2d 1328, revg., 169 A.D.2d 1023, 565 N.Y.S.2d 576, which addressed the application of the "open fields" doctrine (see, Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214) under the State Constitution. Relying on Scott, defendant moved to vacate his guilty plea and for reargument of his suppression motion. County Court adhered to its original denial of defendant's suppression motion, finding that the deputies acted lawfully even under Scott. Defendant was then sentenced, in September 1992, to an indeterminate prison term of 1 to 3 years on the criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree conviction and a lesser determinate term on his conviction for unlicensed growing of marihuana. Defendant appeals from this judgment.

In October 1992, defendant moved to vacate the judgment and requested to be resentenced to a lesser term on the ground that the District Attorney did not inform defendant or County Court that the District Attorney had advised the United States Attorney of defendant's plea, leading to Federal forfeiture proceedings against defendant's property. County Court granted defendant's motion, finding that the People's failure to so inform defendant and County Court resulted in a sentence that was "unauthorized, illegally imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter of law" (CPL 440.20[1]. In June 1993, County Court resentenced defendant to concurrent determinate prison terms of six months. The People appeal from County Court's order granting defendant's motion to set aside the original sentence and from the June 1993 judgment resentencing defendant. Defendant cross-appeals from the June 1993 judgment.

Initially, we reject defendant's argument that the search warrant was based on material misrepresentations concerning the character of defendant's property and the extent of the deputies' invasion of the premises. Although Ferris' testimony at the suppression hearing deviated slightly from the facts revealed on his search warrant application, the differences were not so egregious as to warrant the conclusion that Ferris acted in reckless disregard of the truth (see, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667; People v. Greco, 187 A.D.2d 151, 158, 593 N.Y.S.2d 360, lv. denied 81 N.Y.2d 1073, 601 N.Y.S.2d 593, 619 N.E.2d 671).

We also reject defendant's contention that Ferris and Drew unlawfully entered the curtilage of his residence to observe and smell marihuana plants. Curtilage is generally defined as an area that is related to the "intimate activities of the home" (People v. Reynolds, 71 N.Y.2d 552, 558, 528 N.Y.S.2d 15, 523 N.E.2d 291; see, United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300, 107 S.Ct. 1134, 1139, 94 L.Ed.2d 326; Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 1742, 80 L.Ed.2d 214, supra ) and is entitled to constitutional protection under both State and Federal law (see, United States v. Dunn, supra; People v. Reynolds, supra; 1 LaFave, Search & Seizure § 2.4[a] [2d ed.]. The United States Supreme Court has identified four relevant factors that are "useful analytical tools" to the degree that they bear upon the central question--whether the area in issue is intimately tied to the home itself: (1) the proximity of the area searched to the home, (2) whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, (3) the use to which the area is put, and (4) the visibility of the area to the public (see, United States v. Dunn, supra, 480 U.S. at 301, 107 S.Ct. at 1139).

Applying these factors, we conclude that County Court did not err in finding that defendant's cottage, the area immediately surrounding it and the unmown area where the patches of marihuana were observed, all lay outside the curtilage of defendant's residence (see, United States v. Benish, 5 F.3d 20). First, the record demonstrates that the cottage was located about 425 feet from defendant's residence, and the unmown area of brush and small trees where the deputies observed patches of growing marihuana was 160 to 180 feet from the house. Here, as in Dunn, these substantial distances support no inference that either the cottage or the area of brush and small trees should be treated as an adjunct of the house. Second, the cottage was itself within an area of mown grass and landscaped surroundings, with a pond, a gazebo and lawn furniture nearby. It is significant that there was no fence surrounding the residence and that an unmown area of brush and small trees separated the residence, its yard and outbuildings from the cottage.

Third, although the deputies did not possess "objective data indicating that the [cottage] was not being used for intimate activities of the home", found by the Supreme Court to be an "especially significant" factor (United States v. Dunn, supra, 480 U.S. at 302, 107 S.Ct. at 1140; cf., id., at 305, 107 S.Ct. at 1142 [Scalia, J., concurring in part], and defendant testified at the suppression hearing that the pond and the adjacent area were used for swimming and "backyard" activities, such as barbecuing and lawn games, the cottage was vacant and was emitting a strong odor of marihuana. Furthermore, it contained marihuana plants, grow lights, hoses for irrigation and a timer to control the lights and air conditioner. Outside, 10 to 15 feet away, was a four-foot-high manure pile. When considered together, these facts indicated to the deputies that the use to which the cottage was being put "could not fairly be characterized as so associated with the activities and privacies of domestic life" that they should have deemed the cottage as part of defendant's home (id., at 303, 107 S.Ct. at 1140). Fourth, although nothing in the record suggests that the cottage is readily observable from locations accessible to the public, given that it is about 750 feet from the road, defendant did not erect any fences to prevent persons from observing the cottage and the area around it.

Turning to defendant's next contention, that his suppression motion should have been granted pursuant to the Court of Appeals holding in People v. Scott, 79 N.Y.2d 474, 583 N.Y.S.2d 920, 593 N.E.2d 1328, supra, we first address the question of whether Scott, which was decided after defendant pleaded guilty, applies to this case. Prior to Scott, this court adhered to the "open fields" doctrine as applied by the United States Supreme Court (see, People v. Scott, 169 A.D.2d 1023, 565 N.Y.S.2d 576, r...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • U.S. v. Reilly
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 12 Febrero 1996
    ...overturned and the indictment was dismissed by the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court. People v. Reilly, 195 A.D.2d 95, 101, 606 N.Y.S.2d 836, 840 (3d Dep't 1994). The court held that the search of Reilly's property was illegal under New York's Constitution as applied in......
  • People v. Theodore
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • 13 Febrero 2014
    ...States, 466 U.S. at 178, 180, 104 S.Ct. 1735;People v. Reynolds, 71 N.Y.2d at 558, 528 N.Y.S.2d 15, 523 N.E.2d 291;People v. Reilly, 195 A.D.2d 95, 98, 606 N.Y.S.2d 836). The determination of whether an area falls within the home's curtilage may be made by reference to four factors: “the pr......
  • People v. Malatesta
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • 30 Abril 1999
    ...that the only legitimate purpose for governmental infringement on the rights of the individual is to prevent harm to others"]; People v Reilly, 195 A.D.2d 95, 100). In the case at bar, the People do not rely on the well-established warrant requirement exceptions of consent, or search incide......
  • US v. Reilly, 94-CR-238.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • 16 Diciembre 1994
    ...illegal and suppressed all evidence obtained from the search warrant as the fruit of an illegal entry. People v. Reilly, 195 A.D.2d 95, 606 N.Y.S.2d 836, 837-38, 840 (3rd Dep't 1993). By a federal indictment filed June 30, 1994, defendant was charged with manufacture of marijuana and with c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT