Summary
holding law enforcement's search of defendant's curbside garbage can did not violate the Fourth Amendment because "[t]he defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the refuse he placed at the curb"
Summary of this case from State v. WrightOpinion
02-25-2015
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Aaron CRUMP, appellant.
Toni Marie Angeli, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for appellant. Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Philip J. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.
Toni Marie Angeli, P.C., Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Philip J. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (M. Cohen, J.), rendered June 14, 2013, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, criminally using drug paraphernalia in the second degree (four counts), and criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The search warrant issued in this case was supported by probable cause (see People v. Shulman, 6 N.Y.3d 1, 25–26, 809 N.Y.S.2d 485, 843 N.E.2d 125 ).
The warrantless search of the defendant's curbside garbage cans was lawful. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the warrantless search and seizure of garbage left for collection outside the curtilage of a home (see California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 37, 108 S.Ct. 1625, 100 L.Ed.2d 30 ). The defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the refuse he placed at the curb (see California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S. at 40–41, 108 S.Ct. 1625 ; see People v. Ramirez–Portoreal, 88 N.Y.2d 99, 643 N.Y.S.2d 502, 666 N.E.2d 207 ; People v. Morales, 197 A.D.2d 710, 603 N.Y.S.2d 50 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ENG, P.J., AUSTIN, COHEN and BARROS, JJ., concur.