You are here: / / DEFENDANT WAS OUTSIDE HIS RESIDENCE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED AND A PROTECTIVE...
,

DEFENDANT WAS OUTSIDE HIS RESIDENCE WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED AND A PROTECTIVE SWEEP WAS CONDUCTED INSIDE DEFENDANT’S RESIDENCE; ITEMS OBSERVED IN THE RESIDENCE WERE LATER SEIZED PURSUANT TO A SEARCH WARRANT; BECAUSE THE POLICE HAD NO REASON TO SUSPECT OTHERS WERE PRESENT IN THE RESIDENCE, THE PROTECTIVE SWEEP OF THE RESIDENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE OBSERVED ITEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department held that items observed by the police during a “protective sweep” of his residence should have been suppressed. At the time of defendant’s arrest and the protective sweep defendant was outside of his residence. The police had no reason to believe others were inside the residence:

Upon a lawful arrest, the police may conduct a limited protective sweep of the premises, but this ‘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’ … . The purported protective sweep conducted here was improper, as there were no articulable facts supporting a belief that any other person was present inside the trailer, let alone a person who could pose a threat to those on the scene … . Neither the search warrant nor the suppression hearing testimony reflected that anyone other than defendant was ever observed or believed to be inside the trailer, and there was nothing referenced that would serve to indicate that there was any lingering threat. People v Hadlock, 2023 NY Slip Op 03819, Third Dept 7-13-23

Practice Point: The defendant was arrested outside his residence and the police conducted a protective sweep of the residence which led to the seizure of contraband observed during the sweep. Because the police had no reason to believe anyone else was present, the sweep of the residence was not justified and the observed items should have been suppressed.

 

You might also like
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS’ RULING THAT A NONCONFORMING USE HAD NOT BEEN DISCONTINUED OR ABANDONED SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REVERSED.
THE PUBLIC HEALTH LAW DOES NOT CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST “ASSISTED LIVING” AS OPPOSED TO “RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE” FACILITIES; COMPLAINT PROPERLY DISMSSED (THIRD DEPT).
REQUEST FOR A FRYE HEARING CONCERNING A COMPUTER PROGRAM (TRUEALLELE) THAT PURPORTS TO IDENTIFY DNA CONTAINED IN A MIXTURE THAT COULD NOT OTHERWISE BE TIED TO THE DEFENDANT PROPERLY DENIED BASED ON THE RESULTS OF A HEARING ON THE SAME ISSUE IN ANOTHER CASE, EVEN THOUGH THAT CASE IS ON APPEAL, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR THE ORIGINAL CODE FOR THE PROGRAM, MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PEOPLE’S EXPERT, PROPERLY DENIED (THIRD DEPT).
Criteria for Reduction or Termination of Father’s Child Support Obligations Not Met/No Showing Wife Interfered with Access to Child/No Showing of Unjustified Abandonment by Child
THE 3RD DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO INSERT AN ORDER FROM WHICH NO APPEAL HAD BEEN TAKEN; APPEAL DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).
Substantial Evidence Supported Finding that Allowing a Child to Wander Away Near a Four-Lane Highway Constituted Maltreatment
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO, SUA SPONTE, ADD A PARTY TO THIS PATERNITY PROCEEDING; APPLICABLE LAW EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
WITNESS TESTIMONY TAKEN OUTSIDE THE INMATE’S PRESENCE REQUIRED ANNULMENT AND EXPUNGEMENT.

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

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE WAS NOT... THE RIGHT TO SEEK DISMISSAL OF THE FORECLOSURE ACTION PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215...