People v. Van Brunt

• Decision Date: 02 May 1980
• Citation: 104 Misc.2d 97,427 N.Y.S.2d 712
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Ronald VAN BRUNT, Defendant.
• Court: New York District Court

Page 712

427 N.Y.S.2d 712

104 Misc.2d 97

The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. Ronald VAN BRUNT, Defendant.

District Court, Nassau County, First District, Criminal Term, Part I.

May 2, 1980.

Denis Dillon, Dist. Atty., County of Nassau, by James John Di Pietro, Asst. Dist. Atty, Mineola, for the People.

Henry F. O'Brien, Centereach, for defendant.

DECISION ON RE-SENTENCE

ELI H. MELLAN, Judge.

The defendant appeared before this Court on April 18, 1980 for sentencing with respect to three charges on which he was found guilty after trial by jury, namely, violations of Section 145.00 of the Penal Law, Section 155.25 of the Penal Law and Section 140.10 of the Penal Law. The first two being Class A Misdemeanors and the third being a Class B Misdemeanor.

At the time of sentence, defendant's attorney urged upon the Court to vacate the conviction based upon a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, Payton v. New York State, 445 U.S. 573, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639, decided April 15, 1980 (official cite unavailable. Supreme Court file number 78-5420) decided only three days prior to the date of sentence herein. The argument was that this decision made all warrantless arrests in a home illegal. While the text of the decision was neither available to the Court or the defendant's attorney, defense counsel advanced his argument on the basis of an analysis described in the New York Times. Refusal to accept such unofficial source of the Supreme Court decision, the Court denied the application to vacate the conviction.

On re-sentencing, on April 28, 1980 the Court was provided with a copy of the Payton decision and the same argument was again advanced in behalf of the defendant.

In this instance the defendant being charged with the aforementioned crimes was arrested under the following circumstances: The police arrived at the home of the defendant, rang the doorbell, and were admitted to the premises by defendant's mother. Upon being admitted they asked to see the defendant, who was called by his mother and presented himself, whereupon he was placed under arrest without any written warrant of arrest.

Defendant argues, based upon the Payton case, that such a warrantless arrest is unconstitutional and therefore must be vacated.

The Supreme Court of the United States in the Payton case reversed a decision in People v. Payton by the New York State Court of Appeals, 45 N.Y.2d 300, 408 N.Y.S.2d 395, 380 N.E.2d 224, and held that the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect's home in order to make a routine felony arrest. The Court further held that while warrantless arrests in a public place had previously been held to be constitutional in United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598, this decision does not permit nor apply to warrantless invasions of the privacy of the home. As the court stated, the common law rule on warrantless home arrests was not as clear as the rule on arrests in public places and while it was previously held that the warrantless arrests in a public place were permissible they were not also permissible within the privacy of a person's home.

The court stated that although a majority of the states have taken a position to permit warrantless arrests in a home even in the absence of exigent circumstances there is an obvious declining trend in this regard leading the court to question the propriety of a warrantless arrest within an individual's home.

In quoting from United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598, the court stated at ---- U.S. page ----, 100 S.Ct. at page 1374 of its decision as follows:

". . . we upheld a warrantless "midday public arrest" expressly noting that the case did not pose "the still unsettled question . . . whether and under what circumstances an officer may enter a suspect's home to make a warrantless arrest."

In the case under review the New York Court of Appeals rejected the constitutional attack. The Supreme Court of the United States stated at page ----, 100 S.Ct. at pages 1374-1375 of its said decision as follows:

"We now reverse the New York Court of Appeals and hold that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081); Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782)...