You are here: / / Search of Home for Weapon Not Justified by Exigent Circumstances
,

Search of Home for Weapon Not Justified by Exigent Circumstances

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Pigott, reversed the appellate division, finding that exigent circumstances did not justify the search for and seizure of weapon after the suspects and all members of the household were in one room of the home under police supervision.  The police responded to gunfire, saw one of the suspects with a firearm, and used force to gain entry to the apartment into which the suspects fled:

“[S]ubject only to carefully drawn and narrow exceptions, a warrantless search of an individual's home is per se unreasonable and hence unconstitutional” … . One exception, commonly referred to as the “exigent circumstances” exception, dictates that police may act without a warrant where they possess probable cause to search but “urgent events make it impossible to obtain a warrant in sufficient time to preserve evidence or contraband threatened with removal or destruction” … . Even in such cases, however, “the scope of the conduct thus sanctioned is strictly limited by the necessities of the circumstances in which it arises” … . The People have the burden of establishing that the exigencies of the situation justified the warrantless search … .

In this instance, the People failed to meet that burden. There is no record support for the Appellate Division's conclusion that exigent circumstances justified the search of the closed box. The search was unreasonable as a matter of law because, by the time Officer Brennan opened the box, any urgency justifying the warrantless search had abated. The officers had handcuffed the men and removed them to the living room where they (and the two women) remained under police supervision. At the time Officer Brennan searched the box and discovered the gun, the police “were in complete control of the house” and “[a]ll occupants were out of commission” … . At that point, contrary to the People's contention, there was no danger that defendant would dispose of or destroy the weapon …nor was there any danger to the public or the police … .  Absent the presence of any other exception to the warrant requirement, such as a search incident to arrest or the gun being in plain view … the police were required to obtain a warrant prior to searching the box. People v Jenkins, 2014 NY Slip Op 07007, CtApp 10-16-14

 

You might also like
SANCTIONS FOR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE REQUIRE A SHOWING OF THE RELEVANCE OF THE LOST EVIDENCE; AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR NEGLIGENT SPOLIATION.
FAMILY COURT MADE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REUNITE MOTHER, WHO IS INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED, WITH HER CHILD, WHO WAS REMOVED AFTER A NEGLECT FINDING, THE APPLICABILITY OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) AND THE ADA’S INTERPLAY WITH NEW YORK LAW IN THIS CONTEXT EXPLAINED (CT APP).
INDENTURE TRUSTEE STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES UNDER A VEIL-PIERCING THEORY, COMPLAINT ALLEGED FRAUDULENT REDEMPTIONS SIPHONED OFF ASSETS LEAVING CORPORATE OBLIGORS UNABLE TO PAY NOTEHOLDERS (CT APP).
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO QUESTION WITNESSES WITH THE AID OF STANDBY COUNSEL WAS NOT AN UNEQUIVOCAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF REQUIRING A SEARCHING INQUIRY, DEFENDANT’S WISH TO PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC TESTIMONY TO QUESTION THE VOLUNTARINESS OF HIS CONFESSION WAS PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE CPL 250.10 NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED (CT APP).
Where One Resident Consents to a Search and Another Resident Does Not Consent, the Search Can Not Be Executed—However, the Refusal to Consent Is Only Operative As Long As the Objecting Resident Is Physically Present
VIOLATION OF PROBATION PETITION FACIALLY INSUFFICIENT, TIME, PLACE AND MANNER OF ALLEGED VIOLATIONS NOT STATED (CT APP).
Officer Did Not Have Reasonable Suspicion Defendant Posed a Danger—Pat-Down Search Triggered by a Bulge In Defendant’s Waistband Was Not Justified Under the DeBour Test
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) HAS THE POWER TO UNILATERALLY UNDERTAKE THE REMEDIATION OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE, WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE CORPORATION WHICH RELEASED THE WASTE (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Spontaneous Statements Made After Request for Counsel Properly Admitted—911... Waiver of Appeal Invalid—Failure to Afford Defendant His Right to Counsel...