The People v. Darrion B. Freeman, 72 N.E.3d 565 (NY 2017). · Go Syfert
Search
The People v. Darrion B. Freeman, 72 N.E.3d 565 (NY 2017). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Shaw (nyappdiv, 2024-07-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Shaw
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
Although the tenant later testified that she gave consent to search, the record concerning the events at the time of the consent "lacks support for the conclusion . . . that [she] voluntarily consented" to the search of her home ( People v Freeman , 29 NY3d 926, 928 [2017]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Hoffman
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Based on the totality of the circumstances, we conclude that defendant's consent to the entry of the police was voluntary ( see People v Putnam , 50 AD3d 1514 , 1514 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 963 [2008]; cf. People v Freeman , 29 NY3d 926, 928 [2017], revg 141 AD3d 1164, 1165 [4th Dept 2016]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Brinkley
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
The People bear the "heavy burden" of establishing that consent was indeed voluntary ( People v Gonzalez , 39 NY2d at 128 ; see People v Freeman , 29 NY3d 926, 928 [2017]), and "great deference is afforded to the factual determinations of the trial court" in that regard ( People v Robinson , 156 AD3d 1123, 1129 [2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1119 [2018]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Darrion B. Freeman, Appellant
70 SSM 1.
New York Court of Appeals.
Mar 23, 2017.
72 N.E.3d 565
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Timothy P. Donaher, Public Defender, Rochester (James A. Hobbs of counsel), for appellant., Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Robert J. Shoemaker of counsel), for respondent.
Difiore, Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey, Garcia, Wilson.
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, defendant’s plea vacated, that portion of his motion which requested suppression of tangible property and statements obtained following the entry into defendant’s residence granted, the first and second counts of the indictment dismissed, and the case remitted to County Court for further proceedings on the third count of the indictment. Applying the factors outlined by this Court in People v Gonzalez (39 NY2d 122, 127 [1976]), we hold, consistent with the reasoning of the Appellate Division dissent, that the record lacks support for the conclusion of the courts below that defendant voluntarily consented to the entry and search of his home.

Chief Judge DiFiore and Judges Rivera, Abdus-Salaam, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, defendant’s plea vacated, that portion of his motion which requested suppression of tangible property and statements obtained following entry into defendant’s residence granted, the first and second counts of the indictment dismissed, and case remitted to County Court, Monroe County, for further proceedings on the third count of the indictment, in a memorandum.