| People v Morris |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01967 [126 AD3d 813] |
| March 11, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Appellant, v Horatio Morris, Respondent. |
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (Robert J. Masters andEdward D. Saslaw of counsel), for appellant.
David W. Guy, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for respondent.
Appeal by the People, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of theSupreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), dated March 11, 2013, as granted thatbranch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from.
On April 24, 2012, two police officers observed a verbal dispute between thedefendant, who was standing on the sidewalk, and the occupants of a van. The officersthen observed the defendant jump over a white picket fence in front of a residence andproceed down a driveway to the left of the residence. The defendant then climbed over agreen slatted chain link fence, approximately six feet in height, at the end of thedriveway. Through some spaces in the fence, one of the officers observed the defendantstanding next to a barbeque grill in the backyard of the residence. The defendant thenclimbed back over the chain link fence carrying a black plastic bag, dropped the bag inthe driveway, and yelled, "This is my house." The bag landed with "a heavy thud or aclank." The officers directed the defendant "to stop," at which point the defendant wentinto the residence through the front door.
One of the officers then went onto an adjacent property, climbed over athree-foot-tall chain link fence into the defendant's front yard, approached the blackplastic bag on the driveway, looked inside, and yelled "gun." The officers called theEmergency Services Unit, and, upon their arrival, officers from that unit forcibly enteredthe residence without a warrant and arrested the defendant.
In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendant'somnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence, on the ground that thewarrantless entry by the police onto the defendant's property was not justified.
The curtilage of the home, defined as the area immediately surrounding andassociated with the home or the area that is related to the intimate activities of thehome—is part of the home itself (see Florida v Jardines, 569 US &mdash,&mdash, 133 S Ct 1409, 1414 [2013]; Oliver v United States, 466 US 170, 180[1984]). The Supreme Court properly determined that the defendant's driveway [*2]and front yard, which were completely fenced-in andlocated in close proximity to his home, were within the curtilage of his home. Thedefendant manifested his expectation of privacy and that expectation is one that societyrecognizes as reasonable (see People v Gravano, 67 AD2d 988 [1979],affd 49 NY2d 1016 [1980]; People v Quattrachi, 63 AD2d 655 [1978],affd 47 NY2d 817 [1979]). Further, while the officers had an objective, crediblereason to approach the defendant to request information (see People v Moore, 6 NY3d496, 498 [2006]; People v De Bour, 40 NY2d 210, 223 [1976]), thedefendant's conduct of dropping the bag, which produced "a heavy thud or a clank," andignoring the officer's request to stop did not escalate the encounter to justify pursuit(see People v Hollman, 79 NY2d 181, 185 [1992]; People v Howard, 50NY2d 583, 590 [1980]).
Finally, the People failed to articulate any exigent circumstances justifying thewarrantless entry onto the defendant's property and ensuing search, and the record doesnot reveal any such circumstances (see People v Jenkins, 24 NY3d 62, 65 [2014]; People v Mormon, 100 AD3d782, 783 [2012]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Leventhal,Hinds-Radix and Maltese, JJ., concur.