You are here: / / Criteria for a Valid Warrantless Search of a Home Pursuant to the Emergency...
,

Criteria for a Valid Warrantless Search of a Home Pursuant to the Emergency Exception Described—The Court Noted that One of the Criteria, i.e., that the Police Not Be Primarily Motivated by Intent to Arrest and Seize Evidence, No Longer Applies to Claims Under the US Constitution and May Only Apply to Claims Under the New York Constitution

In affirming County Court’s denial of defendant’s suppression motion, the Second Department explained the application of the emergency exception to the warrant requirement.  The court noted that there is now a question whether one of the criteria for a valid warrantless search pursuant to the emergency exception, i.e., that the police are not primarily motivated by the intent to arrest and seize evidence, no longer applies under the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, and may only apply to claims under the New York Constitution:

“[Al]though warrantless entries into a home are presumptively unreasonable'” …, a warrantless search and seizure in a protected area may be lawful, under some circumstances, pursuant to the emergency doctrine (see People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177-178…). The exception applies where the police (1) have “reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property,” (2) are “not . . . primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence,” and (3) have a “reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched” (People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d at 177-178…).

The United States Supreme Court has held that the subjective intent of the police is not relevant in determining the reasonableness of police conduct under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (see Brigham City v Stuart, 547 US 398, 403). Consequently, the second prong of Mitchell is now relevant, if at all, only to claims raised under the New York Constitution (see NY Const, art I, § 12). We need not determine in this case whether the second prong of Mitchell is still viable under the New York Constitution … , because we conclude that the actions of the police officers were permissible under both Brigham City and Mitchell … . People v Loucks, 2015 NY Slip Op 01471, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

You might also like
​ PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE WAS MAILED TO DEFENDANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
SENDING THE 90-DAY FORECLOSURE NOTICE TO THE TWO BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE VIOLATED RPAPL 1304 (SECOND DEPT).
TOWN EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY AND VIOLATED A FEDERAL REGULATION WHEN IT ASSESSED CONSULTING FEES IN CONNECTION WITH PETITIONER’S REQUESTS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A HAM RADIO ANTENNA ON PETITIONER’S PROPERTY (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING “PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL DID NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF CPLR 3216 BECAUSE ISSUE WAS NEVER JOINED IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION; THE ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH FATHER DEMONSTRATED HIS FAILURE TO PAY CHILD SUPPORT WAS NOT WILLFUL, FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE ENTERED A MONEY JUDGMENT BASED ON HIS FAILURE TO OBEY THE LAWFUL ORDER OF CHILD SUPPORT (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE DEMAND FOR THE RETURN OF THE DEPOSIT UNDER A REAL ESTATE PURCHASE CONTRACT WAS AN ANTICIPATORY BREACH OF THE CONTRACT AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO KEEP THE DEPOSIT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES (SECOND DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS NOT AN OWNER OR A GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND EXERCISED NO SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY OVER THE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S WORK, THEREFORE THE LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED; HOWEVER DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING THE ALLEGEDLY DANGEROUS CONDITION DURING PRIOR WORK ON THE PROPERTY; THEREFORE THE COMMON-LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMSSED (SECOND DEPT).

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

“For Cause” Challenges to Jurors Who Could Only Say They Would “Try”... “Equitable Subrogation” Doctrine Defined