People v. Farenga
| Decision Date | 18 October 1977 |
| Citation | 42 N.Y.2d 1092,369 N.E.2d 1184,399 N.Y.S.2d 651 |
| Parties | , 369 N.E.2d 1184 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Barclay FARENGA, Vincent Nastase and Peter Savino, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Albert C. Aronne and Jeffrey A. Rabin, Brooklyn, for appellants.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty. (Suzan T. Picariello, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
The tax investigator's testimony, taken as a whole in conjunction with information supplied to him by his supervisor, furnished the requisite probable cause for him to enter the driveway and observe the activity there (cf. People v. Rizzo, 40 N.Y.2d 425, 386 N.Y.S.2d 878, 353 N.E.2d 841; People v. Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549, 557-559, 369 N.Y.S.2d 677, 682-685, 330 N.E.2d 631, 635-637; People v. Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86, 91, 262 N.Y.S.2d 65, 70, 209 N.E.2d 694, 697; People v. Coffey, 12 N.Y.2d 443, 240 N.Y.S.2d 721, 191 N.E.2d 263, cert. den. 376 U.S. 916, 84 S.Ct. 671, 11 L.Ed.2d 612).
Furthermore, though a private driveway leading to a home is not outside the area entitled to protection against unreasonable search and seizure (U.S.Const., 4th Amdt.; N.Y. Const., art. I, § 12; see United States v. Magana, 9 Cir., 512 F.2d 1169, cert. den. 423 U.S. 826, 96 S.Ct. 42, 46 L.Ed.2d 43; cf. People v. Doerbecker, 39 N.Y.2d 448, 452, 384 N.Y.S.2d 400, 401, 348 N.E.2d 875, 877), the record in this case reveals that the driveway here was one in which the defendants' activities were carried on in such an overt manner that the suppression court had a right to find that the investigator, in positioning himself there, had not invaded an area as to which defendants had a logical expectation of privacy (see People v. Doerbecker, supra, p. 452, 384 N.Y.S.2d p. 401, 348 N.E.2d p. 877; United States v. Magana, supra, p. 1171; Wattenburg v. United States, 9 Cir., 388 F.2d 853, 857; cf. Mancusi v. De Forte, 392 U.S. 364, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 20 L.Ed.2d 1154; People v. Abruzzi, 42 N.Y.2d 813, 396 N.Y.S.2d 649, 364 N.E.2d 1342, affg. on opn. at 52 A.D.2d 499, 385 N.Y.S.2d 94). Also, the truck and other vehicles then available to the defendants for speedy and wholesale removal of the large stock of cigarettes presented exigent circumstances which made search and seizure of the contents of the garage in which they were located permissible without a warrant (cf. People v. Vaccaro, 39 N.Y.2d 468, 472-473, 384 N.Y.S.2d 411, 414-415, 348 N.E.2d 886, 889-890...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lee
...illegal purpose." Id. at 463, note 20, 91 S.Ct. at 2036; cf. State v. Koncir, La., 367 So.2d 365 (1979); People v. Farenga, 42 N.Y.2d 1092, 399 N.Y.S.2d 651, 369 N.E.2d 1184 (1977).17 Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590, 94 S.Ct. 2464, 2469, 41 L.Ed.2d 325 (1974).18 See State v. Daugherty,......
-
Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers v. Board of Educ. of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School Dist.
...122, 383 N.Y.S.2d 215, 347 N.E.2d 575; People v. Allende, 39 N.Y.2d 474, 384 N.Y.S.2d 416, 348 N.E.2d 891; People v. Farenga, 42 N.Y.2d 1092, 369 N.Y.S.2d 651, 369 N.E.2d 1184; Hynes v. Moskowitz, 44 N.Y.2d 383, 406 N.Y.S.2d 1, 377 N.E.2d 446; People v. Boodle, 47 N.Y.2d 398, 418 N.Y.S.2d 3......
-
People v. Reynolds
...devices were employed, and the over-all degree of intrusiveness on the owner's property and privacy ( see, People v. Farenga, 42 N.Y.2d 1092, 399 N.Y.S.2d 651, 369 N.E.2d 1184 [defendant's activities overt]; People v. Doerbecker, 39 N.Y.2d 448, 452, 384 N.Y.S.2d 400, 348 N.E.2d 875 [defenda......
-
People v. Boyd
...whose removal or destruction is imminent, and there is, accordingly, no time for them to obtain a warrant (People v. Farenga, 42 N.Y.2d 1092, 399 N.Y.S.2d 651, 369 N.E.2d 1184; People v. Vaccaro, 39 N.Y.2d 468, 384 N.Y.S.2d 411, 348 N.E.2d 886). The emergency exception, on the other hand, a......