From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Farenga, Nastase, Savino

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 18, 1977
42 N.Y.2d 1092 (N.Y. 1977)

Opinion

Argued September 9, 1977

Decided October 18, 1977

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, FRANKLIN W. MORTON, JR., J.

Albert C. Aronne and Jeffrey A. Rabin for appellants.

Eugene Gold, District Attorney (Suzan Picariello of counsel), for respondent.


MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The tax investigator's testimony, taken as a whole in conjunction with information supplied to him by his supervisor, furnished the requisite probable cause for him to enter the driveway and observe the activity there (cf. People v Rizzo, 40 N.Y.2d 425; People v Hanlon, 36 N.Y.2d 549, 557-559; People v Malinsky, 15 N.Y.2d 86, 91; People v Coffey, 12 N.Y.2d 443, cert den 376 U.S. 916).

Furthermore, though a private driveway leading to a home is not outside the area entitled to protection against unreasonable search and seizure (US Const, 4th Amdt; N Y Const, art I, § 12; see United States v Magana, 512 F.2d 1169, cert den 423 U.S. 826; cf. People v Doerbecker, 39 N.Y.2d 448, 452), the record in this case reveals that the driveway here was one in which the defendants' activities were carried on in such an overt manner that the suppression court had a right to find that the investigator, in positioning himself there, had not invaded an area as to which defendants had a logical expectation of privacy (see People v Doerbecker, supra, p 452; United States v Magana, supra, p 1171; Wattenburg v United States, 388 F.2d 853, 857; cf. Mancusi v De Forte, 392 U.S. 364; People v Abruzzi, 42 N.Y.2d 813, affg on opn at 52 A.D.2d 499). Also, the truck and other vehicles then available to the defendants for speedy and wholesale removal of the large stock of cigarettes presented exigent circumstances which made search and seizure of the contents of the garage in which they were located permissible without a warrant (cf. People v Vaccaro, 39 N.Y.2d 468, 472-473; People v Clements, 37 N.Y.2d 675, 679, cert den 425 U.S. 911).

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Farenga, Nastase, Savino

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 18, 1977
42 N.Y.2d 1092 (N.Y. 1977)
Case details for

People v. Farenga, Nastase, Savino

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. BARCLAY FARENGA…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 18, 1977

Citations

42 N.Y.2d 1092 (N.Y. 1977)
399 N.Y.S.2d 651
369 N.E.2d 1184

Citing Cases

People v. Sciacca

That is not to say that a vehicle may never be searched while on private property. As we recently decided in…

People v. Quattrachi

People v Wharton, 60 A.D.2d 291), they could have walked to the gate and engaged defendants in conversation…