The following excerpt is from People v. Sivertson, 29 N.Y.3d 1006, 54 N.Y.S.3d 632, 77 N.E.3d 349 (N.Y. 2017):
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 34, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 1414, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 [2013] ; see also Matalon v. Hynnes, 806 F.3d 627, 633 [1st Cir.2015] ["It is common ground that a (person)'s home is (a) castle and, as such, the home is shielded by the highest level of Fourth Amendment protection"] ). Society's interest in preserving the sanctity of the home is reflected in the federal and state constitutional guarantee that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" (see U.S.
[54 N.Y.S.3d 635]
Const. 4th Amend; N.Y. Const. art. I, 12). History teaches that the "physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed" (United States v. United States Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Mich., 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 [1972] ). Indeed, "[f]reedom from intrusion into the home or dwelling is the archetype of the privacy protection secured by the Fourth Amendment" (Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 587, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 [1980] [citation omitted]; see also People v. Mothersell, 14 N.Y.3d 358, 363364, 900 N.Y.S.2d 715, 926 N.E.2d 1219 [2010] ["(I)nnocent persons are commonly encountered in private spaces, such as homes, and, in fact, possess in those spaces the most constitutionally compelling expectations of privacy"] ).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.