You are here: / / Pulling Defendant from Inside His Home for Warrantless Arrest Violated...
, ,

Pulling Defendant from Inside His Home for Warrantless Arrest Violated the Fourth Amendment

The Second Department determined that a new trial was required because defendant’s statement should have been suppressed.  The police pulled the defendant from inside his home to arrest him without a warrant, a violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The Second Department noted, however, that the trial court did not err in refusing the suppress evidence of a post-arrest lineup identification:

Here, the police knocked on the defendant’s door at approximately 6:50 a.m. When the defendant answered the door he appeared to be “half asleep,” and was naked from the waist down. He only partially opened the door, was never in full view of the police, and never crossed the threshold of his apartment. When the police directed the defendant to step fully into view, the defendant instead attempted to shut the door, trapping a detective’s arm as the detective tried to keep the door from closing. After law enforcement officials successfully pushed the door open, they pulled the defendant from the area behind the door into the public hallway, where he was then arrested.

Under the discrete circumstances of this case, where the police officers crossed the threshold into the defendant’s apartment, pulled him into the hallway, and arrested him without a warrant, the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated … . People v Riffas, 2014 NY Slip Op 06333, 2nd Dept 9-24-14

 

You might also like
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONFIRMED THE REFEREE’S REPORT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION BECAUSE THE BUSINESS RECORDS UPON WHICH THE CALCULATIONS IN THE REPORT WERE BASED WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS OWN ADJOINING LOTS ORIGINALLY CONVEYED BY THE SAME GRANTOR WITH A RESTRICTION ALLOWING ONLY ONE RESIDENCE PER LOT; PLAINTIFF HAD THE REQUISITE “VERTICAL PRIVITY” TO ENFORCE THE RESTRICTION WHEN DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO SUBDIVIDE THEIR LOT; DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE COVENANT WAS UNENFORCEABLE DUE TO RPAPL 1951 BECAUSE THE AREA HAD CHANGED (SECOND DEPT).
Defense Counsel’s Failure to Request that the Jury Be Charged with an Affirmative Defense to Robbery First (Weapon Was Not Capable of Being Discharged) Constituted Ineffective Assistance
THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY A PRIOR FORECLOSURE ACTION WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DISCONTINUED (SECOND DEPT). ​
SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT).
THREE OF THE FOUR VEHICULAR HOMICIDE COUNTS WERE MULTIPLICITOUS EVEN THOUGH THEY INVOLVED DIFFERENT SUBDIVISIONS OF VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC LAW 1192; THE DWI AND DWAI COUNTS WERE INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF VEHICULAR HOMICIDE SECOND DEGREE (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR JUDICIAL SURRENDER OF PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS NOT A GROUND FOR VACATION OF THE JUDICIAL SURRENDER.
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIR’S DETERMINATION WAS AFFECTED BY AN ERROR OF LAW WHICH RESULTED IN A MISINTERPRETATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, DETERMINATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANNULLED.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Criteria for Judgment as a Matter of Law and Finding a Verdict to be Against... Police Had “Reasonable Suspicion” Justifying Only Forcible Detention...