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
CLAIMANT, IN HIS APPLICATION FOR BOARD REVIEW, DID NOT SPECIFY WHEN THE OBJECTION SUBJECT TO BOARD REVIEW WAS MADE; THEREFORE THE BOARD PROPERLY DENIED REVIEW OF THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW JUDGE’S DECISION (THIRD DEPT).
THE ZIP CODES ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOME ADDRESSES OF STATE EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE PROVIDED PURSUANT TO A FOIL REQUEST BECAUSE THE FULL HOME ADDRESSES COULD EASILY BE FOUND ON THE INTERNET BY SEARCHING FOR AN EMPLOYEE’S NAME WITH THE RELATED ZIP CODE (THIRD DEPT).
THE BOARD FAILED TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS DECISION TO DENY COVERAGE OF MEDICAL BILLS ON THE GROUND THEY WERE NOT CAUSALLY RELATED TO CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL CONDITION, MAKING APPELLATE REVIEW IMPOSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
A DIAGNOSIS OF ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER WITH NARCISSISTIC AND PARANOID FEATURES IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CIVIL COMMITMENT IN A SECURE FACILITY PURSUANT TO CPL 330.20.
CORRECTIONS OFFICER’S OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT PLEA ALLOCUTION DID NOT ADDRESS ALL THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE INMATE’S CIVIL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE OFFICER, THEREFORE THE STATE WAS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE OFFICER IN THE CIVIL PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).
The County Was Negligent Per Se Due to Its Violation of the Provision of the Vehicle and Traffic Law Requiring Loads in Open Trucks be Covered—Plaintiff Was Struck by Debris Which Came Off an Uncovered Load—The Governmental Immunity Conferred by the Executive Law During a Response to an Emergency (the Truck Was Carrying Debris from the Clean-Up After Hurricane Irene) Did Not Extend to this Situation (Purpose and Scope of the Government’s “Emergency” Immunity Under the Executive Law Explained)
THE MODIFICATION OF THE GUARDIANSHIP ORDER MUST BE IN THE BESTS INTEREST OF THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSON; HERE THE APPOINTMENT OF STEPFATHER AS LIMITED COGUARDIAN CONSTITUTED A CHANGE THAT WAS NOT IN THE DISABLED PERSON’S BEST INTERESTS BECAUSE CONSISTENCY IN ROUTINE AND REGIMEN WAS PARAMOUNT (THIRD DEPT).
Conduct in Prison Justified Upward Departure (SORA)

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...