People v. Perez

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Ortiz

    138 Misc. 2d 486 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1988)   Cited 1 times

    In applying Katz's two-pronged test to the above facts, this court finds that this defendant could not have had any reasonable expectation of privacy in areas of the store where the public was invited to enter and transact business. (See, People v Perez, 78 A.D.2d 703 [2d Dept 1980].) Perhaps it can be argued that precisely because of the illegal nature of the business an extra factor of subjective privacy attaches.

  2. People v. Smith

    125 Misc. 2d 782 (N.Y. Crim. Ct. 1984)   Cited 2 times

    ( Katz v United States, supra.) A sign posted at the entrance to the premises, in conjunction with an unlocked door, indicates a manifest invitation to the public to enter ( People v Perez, 78 A.D.2d 703) and a voluntary relinquishment of an expectation of privacy on the part of the occupant. Absent any of these elements, however, a person who makes certain premises her primary place of residence, posts no signs and shuts her door to the public should not be deemed to have relinquished her expectations of privacy by conducting a private commercial enterprise within.