You are here: / / Defendant Did Not Consent to Entry of Police Into His Home—the Police...
,

Defendant Did Not Consent to Entry of Police Into His Home—the Police Accompanied a Parole Officer for the Express Purpose of Investigating a Burglary—Motion to Suppress Should Have Been Granted

The Second Department determined evidence seized from defendant’s home and statements made by the defendant should have been suppressed.  Using the authority to visit parolees, the police accompanied the parole officer to defendant’s home as part of a burglary investigation. The defendant was arrested after stolen property was noticed by the police in the home.  In determining the trial court erred when it found defendant had consented to the entry of the police into his home, the court wrote:

When the People rely on consent to justify an otherwise unlawful police intrusion, they bear the “heavy burden” of establishing that such consent was freely and voluntarily given … . “Consent to search is voluntary when it is a true act of the will, an unequivocal product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice. Voluntariness is incompatible with official coercion, actual or implicit, overt or subtle” … . The People’s burden of proving voluntariness “cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority” … .

We agree with the defendant that the People failed to prove that his consent to the entry into his home was voluntary. Consent is not voluntary where an officer falsely represents facts that normally establish the exercise of police authority to which a person would ordinarily yield … . Here, pursuant to the conditions of the defendant’s release to parole supervision, he was obligated to allow his parole officer to enter his home to conduct a home visit and conduct a related search of his residence. The People showed no more than the defendant’s acquiescence to this authority, which does not sustain their burden of proving that he freely and voluntarily consented to the entry by the detectives and the sergeant for the purpose of investigating the subject burglaries. People v Marcial, 2013 NY Slip Op 05920, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE EXACT AMOUNT OF DAMAGES HE SUFFERED FROM DEFENDANT’S BREACH OF CONTRACT PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SECOND DEPT).
DRIVER STRUCK AS HE WAS ABOUT TO ENTER HIS PARKED CAR WAS NOT AN OCCUPANT OF THE CAR WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE INSURANCE POLICY.
IN THIS CHILD VICTIM’S ACT CASE ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE AFTER PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE BY THE DEFENDANT COUNTY, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT, DISAGREEING WITH THE FIRST AND FOURTH DEPARTMENTS, DETERMINED THE COUNTY OWED PLAINTIFF A SPECIAL DUTY UPON ASSUMING CUSTODY OVER HER FOR FOSTER-CARE PLACEMENT (SECOND DEPT).
THE PRESUMPTION OF SUGGESTIVENESS RAISED BY THE PEOPLE’S FAILURE TO PRESENT THE PHOTO ARRAYS USED BY THE WITNESS TO IDENTIFY THE DEFENDANT WAS OVERCOME BY THE EVIDENCE OF THE SHEER NUMBER OF PHOTOS VIEWED BY THE WITNESS (SECOND DEPT).
Strictly Construing the Policy, Falling Through a Defective Manhole (Located in the Parking Lot) Into the Building’s Septic System Was Not Subject to the “Parking Lot” Exclusion from Coverage—The Claim Did Not Arise from the “Ownership, Maintenance or Use” of the Parking Lot, But Rather Arose from the “Operations Necessary or Incidental” to the Insured Building
CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNT MUST BE DISMISSED DESPITE FAILURE TO REQUEST THAT IT BE PRESENTED TO THE JURY IN THE ALTERNATIVE IN THIS CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROSECUTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THEY DID NOT HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION OF THE STAIRS ALLEGED TO HAVE CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL BECAUSE THEY OFFERED NO PROOF OF WHEN THE STAIRS WERE LAST INSPECTED (SECOND DEPT).
Decedent’s Statements Admissible Evidence of Pain and Suffering/Damages for Loss of Household Services Explained

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Agents of Property Owner Can Be Liable Under Labor Law 240(1) Denial of Parole Supported by Evidence