MEMORANDUM DECISION AFTER HEARING The defendant is charged with unauthorized use of a vehicle (PL §165.05(1)), petit larceny (PL §155.25) and leaving the scene of a property damage accident (V&TL §600(1)(a)). Payton and Huntley hearings have been held to determine the admissibility at trial of evidence obtained against the defendant. At the hearing, the Court received the testimony of Suffolk County Police Officer Anthony Rosati. Officer Rosati testified that on August 5, 2018 he was working a 5 p.m. to 7 a.m. tour alone in uniform in the Fifth Precinct, Suffolk County, New York. At approximately 12:50 a.m. Officer Rosati received a radio call about an incident at the Saddle Rock apartment complex in Holbrook. The call concerned an Uber driver who reported that his passenger had damaged his vehicle. Officer Rosati arrived at the scene and observed a vehicle up a small embankment into the bushes. He spoke with the Uber driver, who stated that he was dropping off his female passenger, identified as defendant Megan Parris, and that she reported that she had lost her ring in the car. The driver stated that he got into the rear of the car to help her search for the ring and when he told her that he couldn’t find it the defendant accused him of taking it. The driver got out of his vehicle to call 911 and the defendant got into the driver’s seat of the car, put it into reverse and let it roll up the embankment into the bushes, whereupon the defendant got out of the car and ran away. The driver also stated that when he went to get his ID he realized that his wallet was gone and that he thought that the defendant had taken it. Officer Rosati obtained the defendant’s address from the complex security guard and responded to the defendant’s apartment with another officer. The lights were off in the residence and Officer Rosati knocked at the door. Lights came on in the apartment and a female came to the door, opening it approximately 18 inches, but she did not come outside. Officer Rosati testified that he identified the person as Megan Parris and he asked her what had happened with the Uber driver. The defendant stated that she was abused by the driver, but Officer Rosati told her that he did not believe her. He also asked her about the wallet, but she stated that she did not know what he was talking about and asked about her jewelry. When the officer told the defendant that she was going to be placed under arrest, she attempted to close the apartment door, but Officer Rosati testified that he had his foot in the doorway to prevent her from closing the door. He further testified that he reached across the threshold, grabbed the defendant’s arm, pulled the defendant outside the door, handcuffed her and placed her under arrest. When asked if anyone else was in the apartment, the defendant stated that her 13-yearold son was there. The officer then entered the apartment and the defendant objected to his entry without a warrant. Officer Rosati told her that he could not leave a 13-yearold alone and that he had to make sure that he was alright. The officer went up the stairs and was met by the defendant’s father. The defendant was placed into a patrol car and Officer Rosati asked the defendant’s father to speak with his daughter regrading the location of the driver’s wallet. After a conversation between the defendant and her father, the father reported to Officer Rosati that the defendant told him that she threw the wallet but didn’t remember where. The defendant was transported to the precinct for processing, where the defendant again stated that she threw the wallet, had panicked and just wanted to get away. Officer Rosati testified that the defendant was never advised of her Miranda rights. The defendant moves to suppress evidence based upon a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Warrantless, nonconsentual arrests inside a person’s home are presumptively unreasonable in the absence of exigent circumstances. (Payton v. New York, 445 US 573, 586 [1980]; see United States v. Allen, 813 F.3d 76 [2nd Cir. 2016] ["we conclude that where law enforcement officers have summoned a suspect to the door of his home, and he remains inside the home's confines, they may not effect a warrantless 'across the threshold' arrest in the absence of exigent circumstances"] [emphasis added]). The People bear the initial burden of demonstrating that a warrantless arrest was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Officer Rosati acknowledged that no warrant was obtained herein. The testimony fails to demonstrate the existence of any exigent circumstances in this matter. There was no testimony that public safety was endangered, that a weapon was involved, that evidence might be destroyed or that the defendant was in danger of fleeing. The police crossed the threshold of the defendant’s home when they “reach[ed] in and grab[bed] her arm” (Rosati tr at 16, lines 15-16) and “pulled her from the apartment” (Rosati tr at 49, line 8) to arrest her. By reason of the Fourth Amendment violation, the defendant’s statements must be suppressed. (See People v. Riffas, 120 AD3d 1438 [2nd Dept 2014]). The Court finds the People’s reliance on People v. Min Chul Shin (200 AD2d 770 [2nd Dept 1994]) to be unavailing. The Court in Min Chul Shin described the defendant as lacking a legitimate expectation of privacy, “exposed to public view” while standing in the doorway of a residence. Such facts are distinguishable from the circumstances sub judice. Additionally, although the defendant’s statements must be suppressed based upon an illegal arrest on Payton grounds, it is the further finding of this Court that any statements made to the defendant’s father must also be suppressed as involuntarily made pursuant to CPL 60.45(2)(b)(ii). The testimony received herein demonstrates that the defendant’s father was acting as an agent of law enforcement when he was affirmatively requested to elicit information as to the defendant’s conduct regarding the wallet. (See People v. Eberle, 265 AD2d 881 [4th Dept 1999]; see also People v. Cardona, 41 NY2d 333 [1977]). Accordingly, after hearing and evaluating the testimony presented herein, the defendant’s motion to suppress her statements is granted. To the extent that the People seek to use the defendant’s statements for impeachment purposes, said application is denied with leave to renew should the defendant testify in this matter. Dated: August 8, 2019
