People v. Wood
| Decision Date | 07 February 1973 |
| Citation | 341 N.Y.S.2d 310,293 N.E.2d 559,31 N.Y.2d 975 |
| Parties | , 293 N.E.2d 559 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Raymond WOOD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Joseph B. Mistrett, Nathaniel A. Barrell, Henrietta M. Wolfgang, and James Brook, Buffalo, for appellant.
Michael F. Dillon, Dist. Atty. (Judith Blake Manzella, Buffalo, of counsel), for respondent.
One who alone occupies a room in a hotel or an apartment in an apartment house is deemed to have exclusive possession and control over those premises--at least for purposes of search and seizure in the criminal law--and no third party may consent to their being entered or searched by the police. (See Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856; Chapman v. United States, 365 U.S. 610, 81 S.Ct. 776, 5 L.Ed.2d 828.) The case before us, however, is quite different. Here, the bedroom, which was searched, was actually shared by the defendant--a roomer in a one-family house owned by Mrs. Dale--and the latter's 10-year-old son. Since that room was not set aside for the defendant's exclusive possession or use, it follows that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy and that Mrs. Dale who, of course, had a right to enter her own son's bedroom, was privileged to give consent to the search. (See, e.g., People v. Carter, 30 N.Y.2d 279, 282, 332 N.Y.S.2d 865, 866, 283 N.E.2d 746, 747; People v. Belin, 28 N.Y.2d 861, 322 N.Y.S.2d 254, 271 N.E.2d 231; People v. Kowalczyk, 20 N.Y.2d 835, 285 N.Y.S.2d 78, 231 N.E.2d 772; People v. Gallmon, 19 N.Y.2d 389, 392, 280 N.Y.S.2d 356, 359, 227 N.E.2d 284, 286, cert. den. 390 U.S. 911, 88 S.Ct. 832, 19 L.Ed.2d 884; People v. D'Iorio, 16 N.Y.2d 551, 260 N.Y.S.2d 660, 208 N.E.2d 465, modfg. on other grounds 22 A.D.2d 853, 254 N.Y.S.2d 229, revd. on other grounds 17 N.Y.2d 808, 271 N.Y.S.2d 260, 218 N.E.2d 306; see, also, Ringel, Searches and Seizures, Arrests and Confessions (1972) § 232, p. 290 et seq.)
The order appealed from should be affirmed.
Order affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dolan
...common authority over the premises or property (U. S. v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242; People v. Wood, 31 N.Y.2d 975, 341 N.Y.S.2d 310, 293 N.E.2d 559). It logically follows that any one of two or more persons having a mutual interest in the property may consent to or......
-
People v. Ponto
... ... The prevailing rule in this and a number of other jurisdictions is that the lessor of real or personal property lacks the requisite authority to consent to a warrantless search of the leased property (People ... v. Wood, 31 N.Y.2d 975, 341 N.Y.S.2d 310, 293 N.E.2d 559; People v. McNeeley, 77 A.D.2d 205, 433 N.Y.S.2d 293; People v. Stadtmore, 52 A.D.2d 853, 382 N.Y.S.2d 807; People v. Mullgrav, 25 A.D.2d 784, 269 N.Y.S.2d 540; see, also, State of Arizona v. Carrillo, 26 Ariz.App. 113, 546 P.2d 838; State of ... ...
-
People v. Benitez
...the police to enter and search the apartment (People v. Cosme, 48 N.Y.2d 286, 422 N.Y.S.2d 652, 397 N.E.2d 1319; People v. Wood, 31 N.Y.2d 975, 341 N.Y.S.2d 310, 293 N.E.2d 559), "the burden of proof rests heavily upon the People to establish the voluntariness of that waiver of a constituti......
-
People v. Alston
...grounds 22 A.D.2d 853, 254 N.Y.S.2d 229, revd. on other grounds 17 N.Y.2d 808, 271 N.Y.S.2d 260, 218 N.E.2d 306; People v. Wood, 31 N.Y.2d 975, 341 N.Y.S.2d 310, 293 N.E.2d 559; People v. Kowalczyk, 20 N.Y.2d 835, 285 N.Y.S.2d 78, 231 N.E.2d 772; People v. Gallmon, 19 N.Y.2d 389, 392, 280 N......