People v. Ponder
| Decision Date | 19 November 1981 |
| Parties | , 429 N.E.2d 735 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Wade PONDER, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The question presented on this appeal is whether the "automatic standing" rule in search and seizure cases should be retained as the law in this State. That rule relieves a defendant charged with a possessory offense of the burden of establishing that he has an interest in the premises searched or the property seized in order to have standing to challenge the search or seizure. We agree with the Appellate Division's, 77 A.D.2d 223, 433 N.Y.S.2d 288, determination that the rule should no longer be applied.
Joseph Salerno was shot on February 10, 1977 and later died of a wound he received during the robbery of his hardware store in Rochester, New York. Two police officers, Parks and Peck, arrived at the scene within five minutes of the shooting. Parks obtained a description of the assailant and an account of the robbery from the victim, Mr. Salerno. Detective Perticone and other police officers arrived shortly thereafter.
A bystander at the scene told Detective Perticone that while shoveling snow at her home, located close to the scene of the crime, she had seen defendant, with whom she was acquainted, running away from the hardware store a few minutes before the police arrived. She said she had noticed a black and silver object protruding from his jacket. Detective Perticone was familiar with defendant as a result of the latter's prior criminal activity. Perticone also knew that defendant had been apprehended at the nearby residence of his grandmother, Louise Ponder, on previous occasions.
Perticone communicated this information to the other officers and the group proceeded to the Louise Ponder residence. Perticone and two of the other policemen stationed themselves on a street running behind the house. Parks and Peck approached the side door of the house and observed a .22 caliber bullet lying on the snow-covered ground near the door. They knocked on the side door which the defendant opened, although he was not then recognized by either officer. When asked whether "Wade" was inside, the defendant pointed upstairs. Parks and Peck continued into the house leaving the defendant unattended. The defendant was apprehended by Perticone as he fled from the house.
After arresting the defendant, Perticone joined Peck in the house intending to search for the weapon. The Appellate Division found that Louise Ponder, who was home at the time, did not consent to a search of the house. Believing that Mrs. Ponder had consented, the officers proceeded to search the premises without a warrant and Peck found a sawed-off .22 calibre rifle inside a covered washing machine in the basement. Later at the station house defendant gave a written statement in which he described the robbery and admitted the shooting.
At the Huntley hearing, Mrs. Ponder testified that defendant was one of 30 grandchildren and, like the rest, he did not live with her but occasionally spent the night. She further testified that no particular room had been assigned for defendant's use, that he was not staying at her home on February 10, 1977, and that he never slept in the basement nor used or had any interest in the washing machine.
Defendant was indicted and after a jury trial was convicted of felony murder (Penal Law, § 125.25, subd. 3), manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law, § 125.20, subd. 1) and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law, § 265.02, subd. 4).
On these facts it is clear that there was probable cause for defendant's arrest. The only other issue raised on this appeal which requires our attention is whether defendant should be afforded "automatic standing" to contest the validity of the warrantless search of Mrs. Ponder's home, which led to the seizure of the weapon.
The "automatic standing" rule has its genesis in the Supreme Court's 1960 decision of Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697, where it was held that the standing of a defendant charged with a possessory offense to challenge the validity of a search was not to be conditioned upon a demonstration that he had an interest in the premises searched or the property seized. Our court retained the rule as part of New York State's criminal jurisprudence in People v. Hansen, 38 N.Y.2d 17, 377 N.Y.S.2d 461, 339 N.E.2d 873, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's apparent receptivity at that time to reconsideration of its "automatic...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Ibarguen
...N.Y.S.2d 500, 633 N.E.2d 1104 [1994] [finding no privacy interest in the apartment even after an evidentiary hearing]; People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160, 166, 445 N.Y.S.2d 57, 429 N.E.2d 735 [1981] [finding no privacy interest in the defendant's grandmother's house after an evidentiary hearin......
-
State v. Davis
...v. Smith, supra, 420 Mich. at 25-26, 360 N.W.2d 841; State v. McCrary, 621 S.W.2d 266, 273 (Mo.1981); People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160, 165, 445 N.Y.S.2d 57, 429 N.E.2d 735 (1981); State v. Lind, 322 N.W.2d 826, 833 (N.D.1982); State v. Wilson, 678 N.W.2d 176, 185-86 (S.D.2004); State v. Cal......
-
State v. Taua
...49 (1981); People v. Smith, 420 Mich. 1, 360 N.W.2d 841 (1984); State v. McCrary, 621 S.W.2d 266 (Mo.1981); People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160, 445 N.Y.S.2d 57, 429 N.E.2d 735 (1981); State v. Lind, 322 N.W.2d 826 (N.D.1982); State v. Callaway, 106 Wis.2d 503, 317 N.W.2d 428 (1982), and six th......
-
People v. Scretchen
...15, 523 N.E.2d 291 (1988); People v. Rodriguez, 69 N.Y.2d 159, 513 N.Y.S.2d 75, 505 N.E.2d 586 (1987); People v. Ponder, 54 N.Y.2d 160, 165, 445 N.Y.S.2d 57, 429 N.E.2d 735 (1981). Certain expectations of privacy are protected against intrusion by a warrant that is issued on probable cause.......