WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing defendant’s conviction which stemmed from a violation of an order of protection, determined that the emergency exception to the warrant requirement did not apply and her motion to suppress should have been granted. The order of protection directed defendant to stay away from Thomas Collins. The police officer, Carmichael, after entering defendant’s apartment without permission, found Collins hiding there:

We conclude that Carmichael’s testimony established that there was not an objectively reasonable basis for him to believe that there was an ongoing emergency in defendant’s apartment that required immediate assistance to protect life or property. Carmichael was aware that defendant was no longer incarcerated. There was no evidence that defendant’s apartment had been forcibly entered, nor was there any other indication of an ongoing crime or emergency. The low, muffled sound that he heard and the faint light that was seen through the window were consistent with an occupant watching television, a reasonable activity at that hour of night. Moreover, Carmichael’s testimony further established that the police may have been motivated to search defendant’s apartment by the possibility of locating Collins there and arresting him. Carmichael confirmed that he was aware that there was an outstanding warrant for Collins’ arrest. The police had been advised that Collins had been seen in the vicinity of defendant’s apartment during the evening in question, and they considered the possibility that he was at her apartment in violation of the order of protection. After Carmichael handcuffed defendant, he reported by radio to the other officers on the scene that he had detained the “female subject,” and, when he located Collins, he stated that he had detained “that other subject.”

Further, even had Carmichael’s initial entry been lawful, his subsequent search of defendant’s apartment was not. A protective sweep is justified only when the police “have articulable facts upon which to believe that there is a person present who may pose a danger to those on the scene” … . Upon entry, Carmichael found that the apartment was occupied by defendant — known by him to be the tenant entitled to occupy the apartment — who told him that she was watching television, denied that anyone else was present and made no request for assistance. Thus, the facts known to Carmichael did not reasonably support the belief that there was any danger to himself or to defendant. People v Sears, 2018 NY Slip Op 07197, Third Dept 10-25-18

CRIMINAL LAW (WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO WARRANT REQUIREMENT (WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/SUPPRESS, MOTION TO, (WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO DEFENDANT’S APARTMENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE EMERGENCY EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, MOTION TO SUPPRESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CONVICTION REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))