People v. Santos

• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: All concur, FULD, C.J., and BURKE
• Citation: People v. Santos, 25 N.Y.2d 976, 305 N.Y.S.2d 365, 252 N.E.2d 861 (N.Y. 1969)
• Decision Date: 29 October 1969
• Parties: , 252 N.E.2d 861 PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Crispin SANTOS, Appellant.

Page 365

305 N.Y.S.2d 365

25 N.Y.2d 976, 252 N.E.2d 861

PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Crispin SANTOS, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 29, 1969.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 31 A.D.2d 508, 298 N.Y.S.2d 526. Joel Berger, Milton Adler, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

Frank S. Hogan, New York City (Michael R. Juviler, David Otis Fuller, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Defendant was charged with criminally receiving stolen property as a felony in violation of former Penal Law, Consol.Laws, c. 40, § 1308.

The defendant made a motion to suppress evidence allegedly obtained as result of unlawful search and seizure in alleged violation of the Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution. At hearing on the motion there was evidence that after police officer had arrested third person on a charge of receiving stolen property, officer asked third person where he obtained stolen jewelry in his possession and that third person said that he had bought it from one described as the defendant, that the defendant was a parolee, that defendant when paroled was required to sign, as a condition of release, a certificate wherein he acknowledged that he consented to search of his residence, that parole officer obtained a parole violation warrant for defendant, and that the police officer and the parole officer obtained a parole violation warrant for defendant and went to defendant's address, and that defendant's landlady told them that defendant had left for work and opened his locked door for them, and that in a bureau drawer they found stolen jewels, and that about 20 minutes later the police officer arrested the defendant. The motion was denied.

The defendant pleaded guilty of an attempt to criminally conceal and withhold stolen property.

The Supreme Court, New York County, entered judgment.

The Appellate Division entered a judgment April 8, 1969, affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County.

The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division, contending that motion to suppress should have been granted because the warrantless search of a man's home in his absence cannot be reconciled with the Fourth Amendment, and the status of defendant as a parolee did not deprive him of the protection of the Fourth Amendment, and that denial of motion of defendant to suppress deprived him of equal protection of the law, because there...