People v. Murray
| Decision Date | 02 December 1999 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ERNEST MURRAY, Also Known as RAHEEM, Appellant. |
On June 17, 1997, defendant was indicted on three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree arising out of alleged sales of cocaine in the City of Hudson, Columbia County, in April 1997 and June 1997. An arrest warrant issued by Supreme Court on June 19, 1997 was executed the following day at 42 Allen Street in Hudson, at which time police found additional quantities of cocaine in defendant's clothing and in a body cavity, resulting in a superseding indictment dated September 23, 1997 containing two additional counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth and fifth degrees.
Defendant moved to suppress the evidence seized from his person at the time of his arrest, alleging that because the warrant was executed at the residence of a third person, a search warrant was required under CPL 120.80 (4). At the ensuing suppression hearing, defendant's girlfriend, Barbara Jones, testified that although she and defendant had resided together at another address from January 8 to June 14, 1997, she alone moved to 42 Allen Street six days prior to defendant's arrest. Jones conceded, however, that defendant had stayed overnight at 42 Allen Street two or three times in that six-day period, and that he had clothing and personal effects there. County Court made a finding of fact that defendant resided at 42 Allen Street with Jones, and that consequently no search warrant was required to execute the arrest warrant at that location.
Following the suppression hearing, a Wade hearing was commenced to test the propriety of the identification procedures employed with respect to the sale counts of the indictment. Shortly after the hearing began, defendant opted to plead guilty to the indictment. Before sentencing, however, he sought to withdraw his plea, claiming that he was not guilty of the charges and that he had not received effective assistance of counsel. County Court conducted a lengthy inquiry into defendant's assertions, following which it denied his request to withdraw his plea after finding no merit to the claim that his counsel was ineffective and refusing to credit his protestations of innocence in the face of his prior sworn plea allocution. Defendant was thereafter sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent prison terms of 10 to 20 years and now appeals.
Defendant's principal contention on this appeal is that County Court erred in determining that his June 20, 1997 arrest was lawful and that the cocaine seized incident thereto was admissible. The thrust of defendant's argument is that because 42 Allen Street was the dwelling of a third party, irrespective of whether defendant also resided there, CPL 120.80 (4) required the police to obtain a search warrant before entering the premises to execute the arrest warrant.
Initially, we note that although defendant's argument does not turn on this finding, County Court's factual determination that 42 Allen Street was defendant's residence as well as that of Barbara Jones is amply supported by the testimony adduced at the suppression hearing. The parties resided together at another location for the six months immediately preceding June 14, 1997. Although Jones maintained that defendant did not move with her, she acknowledged that he had stayed overnight "once or twice" and that his clothing and personal effects were in the new apartment. Defendant was present at 42 Allen Street when the warrant was executed, emerging from the bedroom.
We start with the proposition that "an arrest warrant founded on probable cause implicitly carries with it the limited authority to enter a dwelling in which the suspect lives where there is reason to believe the suspect is within" (Payton v New York, 445 US 573, 603; see, CPL 120.80 [4]). Thus, armed with the arrest warrant, the police were empowered to enter defendant's residence to effect his arrest. While conceding as much, defendant nonetheless maintains that by virtue of the US Supreme Court's holding in Steagald v United States (451 US 204) and the resultant 1991 amendment to CPL 120.80 (4), a search warrant is necessary where defendant's home is also that of a third person. We cannot agree. Steagald stands for no such proposition, and indeed the narrow question presented in that case was "whether an arrest warrant—as opposed to a search warrant—is adequate to protect the Fourth Amendment interests of persons not named in the warrant" (supra, at 204). While CPL 120.80 (4) accordingly serves to protect the 4th Amendment rights of Barbara Jones pursuant to Steagald, it does not afford defendant any enhanced rights by virtue of his cohabitation with her (see, United States v Lovelock, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial