PEOPLE v. COLLETTA (2001)

 Contrary to the contention of defendant, County Court properly denied his motion to suppress, inter alia, marihuana seized by police officers from the enclosed back yard of his residence.   Probation officers entered defendant's premises to execute an arrest warrant for another person residing there and, upon observing marihuana in the back yard, reported their observation to the police.   The probation officers were authorized to enter defendant's premises to execute the arrest warrant (see, United States v. Lovelock, 170 F.3d 339, 345 [2d Cir], cert. denied 528 U.S. 853, 120 S.Ct. 134, 145 L.Ed.2d 114;  see also, People v. Murray, 267 A.D.2d 492, 494, 700 N.Y.S.2d 240, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 923, 708 N.Y.S.2d 363, 729 N.E.2d 1162).  “A person who occupies premises jointly with another has a reduced expectation of privacy since he assumes the risk that his house-mate may engage in conduct that authorizes entry into the premises” (United States v.. Lovelock, supra, at 345;  see, United States v. Chaidez, 919 F.2d 1193, 1202 [7th Cir], cert. denied 502 U.S. 872, 112 S.Ct. 209, 116 L.Ed.2d 167;   United States v. Litteral, 910 F.2d 547, 553 [9th Cir] ).   The probation officers' presence at the front and rear doors to the residence was authorized and thus the marihuana growing in the fenced back yard in plain view was properly seized by the police without a warrant (see, People v. Diaz, 81 N.Y.2d 106, 110, 595 N.Y.S.2d 940, 612 N.E.2d 298;  People v. Basilicato, 64 N.Y.2d 103, 115, 485 N.Y.S.2d 7, 474 N.E.2d 215;  see generally, Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112).