Title: The People v. Rance P. Scully

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

- 1 -
=================================================================
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
No. 68  
The People &c.,
            Respondent,
        v.
Rance P. Scully,
            Appellant.
Mark C. Curley, for appellant.
Steven G. Cox, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
In March 2002, an investigator with the Utica Police
Department applied for a warrant to search the second floor of
premises located in the City of Utica for drugs, drug
paraphernalia, and illegal weapons.  The application also
- 2 -
No. 68
- 2 -
requested permission to search two John Does, who were described,
and "any other person who may be found to have such property in
his possession or under his control at the time of the execution
of said warrant."  The basis for the application was a
confidential informant's statement, as well as the investigator's
own probe.  
On March 15, 2002, City Court issued the search
warrant.  When the investigator arrived at the first-floor rear
door of the premises to execute the search warrant, he heard
someone walking down the stairs.  Then, a man from behind the
door, "asked [him] what [he] wanted, [and the investigator] told
him one, meaning one $20.00 piece of crack cocaine."  After this
man opened the door, the investigator "walked into what would be
a common hallway," and whispered "I'm a police officer."  The
investigator searched the man and found a .38 caliber American
deringer loaded with two live rounds in the front pocket of his
sweatshirt.  In the man's front pants pocket, the investigator
found ammunition and approximately $847 in United States
currency.  This man was also carrying photographic identification
that bore defendant Rance Scully's name.  Meanwhile, other police
officers proceeded up the stairs to the second floor, entered the
apartment, and searched it.  They found a clear plastic sandwich
baggy containing several smaller plastic baggies, each tied in a
knot and each containing a quantity of an off-white, chunky
substance; two plastic baggies containing a greenish-brown
- 3 -
No. 68
- 3 -
vegetation; and a single-edged razor blade and a partially-
smoked, hand-rolled cigarette containing a greenish-brown
vegetation.
Defendant was arrested based on the weapon on his
person.  After being advised of his Miranda rights, he agreed to
answer questions.  When asked "[D]o you live here," defendant
responded "I stay here."  When the question was repeated, he said
"I'm staying here with a friend."  When asked whose gun he had,
defendant answered "mine."  And when queried where he got the
gun, defendant replied "I found it and I've been carrying it
because some people around here have been threatening me and I
wanted to protect myself."  Defendant admitted that he did not
have a permit for the gun, but he denied knowledge of the crack
in the apartment.
In May 2002, defendant was indicted for weapon
possession, possession of a controlled substance, and unlawful
possession of marihuana (a violation).  He moved to suppress "any
evidence allegedly seized from [him] upon the grounds such
seizure was unconstitutional and improperly and illegally
conducted, and was in violation of [his] Constitutional Rights."  
In the supporting affidavit, defendant's attorney stated, upon
information and belief, that "the evidence obtained in this case
was obtained by way of a search warrant," and that "the
information placed before the Judge was not sufficient to satisfy
the requirements for probable cause for the issuance of the
- 4 -
No. 68
- 4 -
warrant as it related to this Defendant."  In opposition, the
People argued, among other things, that defendant's boilerplate
allegations "fail[ed] to establish that the defendant has
suffered any constitutional or statutory violations."  The Judge
denied suppression without a hearing.  In February 2006,
defendant was convicted in absentia, after a jury trial, of
criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, criminal
possession of a controlled substance in the third and fifth
degrees, and unlawful possession of marihuana.  Defendant
appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed, as modified in a
way not pertinent to this appeal (61 AD3d 1364 [4th Dept 2009]).
In People v Burton (6 NY3d 584, 588 [2006]), we noted
that although "individuals possess a legitimate expectation of
privacy with regard to their persons," the mere assertion "that
contraband was recovered from [a] defendant [does] not create an
issue of fact as to whether the search and seizure were the
result of a Fourth Amendment violation" (id. at 589).  Rather,
the defendant "must additionally assert that the search was not
legally justified and there must be sufficient factual
allegations to support that contention" (id. at 591).  Before us,
defendant argues only that County Court should have granted a
suppression hearing because he alleged that the officer searched
him on the basis of a search warrant that had been issued without
probable cause.  But, defendant did not supplement his original
motion papers with factual allegations to support his claim that
- 5 -
No. 68
- 5 -
probable cause was lacking.  Therefore, he failed to raise an
issue of fact to warrant a suppression hearing as to the weapon.  
Next, "a defendant seeking to challenge a search and
seizure . . . [is] required to demonstrate a personal legitimate
expectation of privacy in the searched premises" (People v
Wesley, 73 NY2d 351, 357 [1989]).  In this case, defendant did
not assert a privacy interest in the apartment in his motion
papers or at oral argument.  He merely argued that the search
warrant was issued without probable cause, and that he did not
match the description of the individuals named in the warrant. 
Thus, he did not meet his burden to establish standing to seek
suppression of the drugs found in the apartment.
Defendant's remaining claims are unpreserved for our
review.
*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *
Order affirmed, in a memorandum.  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges
Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur.
Decided May 6, 2010