Opinion
March 23, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J.).
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The record supports the court's finding that the ruse used by the police to obtain entry into defendant's apartment by misrepresenting the identity of the person being sought did not deprive defendant's girlfriend of her freedom of choice and was not so unfair as to undermine her consent ( see, Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218; People v. Roberson, 249 A.D.2d 148, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 904; People v. Horn, 217 A.D.2d 406, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 843; see also, People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1). The record also supports the court's finding that, even if the entry had been unlawful, the seizure of defendant's boots was attenuated from that illegality. The circumstance that defendant was taken to the police station while wearing boots later discovered to have evidentiary significance was a happenstance; when defendant's girlfriend was requested by the police to get clothing for defendant, she selected the boots.
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Lerner, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.