People v. Kozlowski

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: WACHTLER
• Citation: People v. Kozlowski, 513 N.Y.S.2d 101, 69 N.Y.2d 761, 505 N.E.2d 611 (N.Y. 1987)
• Decision Date: 10 February 1987
• Parties: , 505 N.E.2d 611 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kenneth A. KOZLOWSKI, Appellant.

Page 101

513 N.Y.S.2d 101

69 N.Y.2d 761, 505 N.E.2d 611

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kenneth A. KOZLOWSKI, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 10, 1987.

Lawrence A. Porcari and Lawrence A. Porcari, Jr., Yonkers, for appellant.

Carl A. Vergari, Dist. Atty. (Joseph M. Latino and Anthony J. Servino, White Plains, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of Appellate Term should be affirmed.

While driving at 3:50 A.M. on May 3, 1983, defendant was observed by a fellow motorist leaving the roadway, striking two fences and a utility pole, and severely damaging his vehicle. The motorist followed defendant to a house, saw him leave the car--unsteadily--and enter the house, and then called the police. He thereafter accompanied the police officer to defendant's house and pointed out the vehicle, which was parked in the driveway in open view from the street. Investigating the report, the officer walked up the driveway and onto an open-ended porch. He opened the screen door in order to knock on the front door and knocked loudly, and defendant (identified as the driver) came to the door. Defendant (described by the officer as having a strong odor of alcohol on his breath, glassy, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech and unsteady gait) told the officer that he had been drinking, that he had lost control of his car and hit the fences and pole, that he had left the scene and would pay for any damage caused. The officer then arrested defendant for driving while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a property damage accident. The officer apparently entered the house in the course of the arrest. Defendant's motion to suppress all incriminating evidence, on the basis of article I, section 12 of the New York Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, was denied without a hearing. After a Huntley hearing, the court also denied defendant's motion to suppress his statements, and defendant pleaded guilty to both charges. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by Appellate Term.

The major thrust of defendant's argument on this appeal is that, by arresting him at the threshold of his home or in his home, the People violated Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (see, 2 La Fave, Search and Seizure § 6.1, at 161, n. 61.5 [1986 Supp.] ). Payton precludes the introduction of evidence obtained as the result of a warrantless, nonconsenual entry into a suspect's home in order to make an arrest. Here, however, the incriminating evidence was not the product of an illegal arrest; rather, it was obtained...