People v. Garcia

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Garcia

49 Misc. 2d 938, 268 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2065

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 23, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 49 Misc. 2d 938 (People v. Garcia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Garcia, 49 Misc. 2d 938, 268 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2065 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant failed to show that he had any interest in the premises searched so as to establish his standing as one aggrieved thereby. Moreover, the police officer, in the performance of his duties, had a right to enter the public hallway of the multiple dwelling here involved as of right. (Cf. Beedenbender v. Midtown Props., 4 A D 2d 276). Common passageways, not under the domain of any particular occupant, such as the one here, do not come within the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the evidence obtained by the police officer while legally on the premises without a search warrant is admissible and the motion to suppress should not have been granted (Burks v. United States, 287 F. 2d 117, cert. den. 369 U. S. 841; United States v. Buchner, 164 F Supp. 836, affid. 268 F. 2d 891, cert. den. 359 U. S. 908; People v. Capone, 35 Misc 2d 1071).

The order should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts and motion to suppress evidence denied.

Margett, Brenner and Olliffe, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Defendant failed to show that he had any interest in the premises searched so as to establish his standing as one aggrieved thereby. Moreover, the police officer, in the performance of his duties, had a right to enter the public hallway of the multiple dwelling here involved as of right. (Cf. Beedenbender v. Midtown Props., 4 A D 2d 276). Common passageways, not under the domain of any particular occupant, such as the one here, do not come within the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the evidence obtained by the police officer while legally on the premises without a search warrant is admissible and the motion to suppress should not have been granted (Burks v. United States, 287 F. 2d 117, cert. den. 369 U. S. 841; United States v. Buchner, 164 F Supp. 836, affid. 268 F. 2d 891, cert. den. 359 U. S. 908; People v. Capone, 35 Misc 2d 1071).

The order should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts and motion to suppress evidence denied.

Margett, Brenner and Olliffe, JJ., concur.

Order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 Misc. 2d 938, 268 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-garcia-nyappterm-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack