People v. Gravano
| Decision Date | 20 February 1979 |
| Citation | 413 N.Y.S.2d 429,67 A.D.2d 988 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Salvatore GRAVANO, Gary Gardine, Lawrence Macari, Alexander Cuomo and Peter Macari, Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Jacob R. Evseroff, Brooklyn (Jeffrey A. Rabin, Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellants.
Eugene Gold, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Margaret Harrington, Brooklyn, of counsel), for respondent.
Before O'CONNOR, J. P., and SHAPIRO, COHALAN and MARGETT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeals by defendants from five judgments (one as to each of them) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, all rendered November 7, 1977, convicting defendants Gravano, Cuomo and Lawrence Macari of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, and convicting defendants Gardine and Peter Macari of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon their respective pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences. The appeals also bring up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendants' motion to suppress certain physical evidence.
Judgments reversed, on the law, motion granted and cases remanded to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The motion to suppress certain physical evidence should have been granted. A radio communication alerted police to reports of "suspicious" late-night activity. At the scene, police officers spoke with two unidentified complainants, neither of whom testified at the suppression hearing. According to the officers' testimony, one complainant reported hearing noises in the vicinity of his house and the other reported seeing a van enter a nearby private or semi-private driveway. Only after they entered upon the driveway did the police espy the defendants under circumstances which aroused suspicions of criminal activity. It was conceded that the curvature of the driveway shielded the defendants from the view of police officers standing on the public sidewalk.
In our opinion, the warrantless entry by police onto the driveway where the defendants were found constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment (see People v. Gleeson, 36 N.Y.2d 462, 466, 369 N.Y.S.2d 113, 116, 330 N.E.2d 72, 74; cf. People v. Abruzzi, 52 A.D.2d 499, 502-504, 385 N.Y.S.2d 94, 96-98, affd. 42 N.Y.2d 813, 396 N.Y.S.2d 649, 364 N.E.2d 1342). The defendants' right to be on the premises searched by the police is not in question. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Smith
...against unreasonable search and seizure (People v. Farenga, 42 N.Y.2d 1092, 1093, 399 N.Y.S.2d 651, 369 N.E.2d 1184; People v. Gravano, 67 A.D.2d 988, 413 N.Y.S.2d 429, mod. 68 A.D.2d 895, affd. 49 N.Y.2d 1016, 429 N.Y.S.2d 634, 407 N.E.2d 478; cf. Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 104......
-
People v. Malatesta
...supra, 103 A.D.2d, at 943). However, police entry into a private driveway is not uniformly permitted as a matter of law (see, People v Gravano, 67 A.D.2d 988, affd 49 N.Y.2d 1016). Moreover, in none of the cases cited by the People did the defendant manifest an intention to exclude the publ......
-
People v. Morris
...defendant manifested his expectation of privacy and that expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable (see People v. Gravano, 67 A.D.2d 988, 413 N.Y.S.2d 429, affd. 49 N.Y.2d 1016, 429 N.Y.S.2d 634, 407 N.E.2d 478 ; People v. Quattrachi, 63 A.D.2d 655, 404 N.Y.S.2d 386, affd. 47......
- People v. Hernandez