You are here: / ENTRY OF HOME (POLICE)

Tag Archive for: ENTRY OF HOME (POLICE)

, ,

Court Should Have Held a Hearing to Determine Whether Exigent Circumstances Justified Warrantless Forced Entry to an Apartment

The First Department determined that the motion court should have held a hearing to determine whether the forced entry of an apartment was justified by exigent circumstances.  At the time of defendant’s motion for a hearing, the facts surrounding the incident were not available to the defendant and the People’s response to the motion was “conclusory:”

In denying defendant’s application for a hearing, the Court summarily found that exigent circumstances justified the pursuit and warrantless entry, based upon the individuals in the hallway reportedly having smoked marijuana, then racing into the apartment and locking the door, and the need to prevent destruction of evidence. Defendant argues in his brief that at most some individuals were seen smoking marijuana, a class B misdemeanor that would not present exigent circumstances sufficient for a forced entry.

Under the circumstances presented here, where the information proffered by the People to support the forcible entry was conclusory and defendant did not have access to available information, we find that it was incumbent upon the motion court to conduct a hearing to determine whether there were sufficient exigent circumstances to justify the forced warrantless entry… . People v Chamlee, 2014 NY Slip Op 05921, 1st Dept 8-21-14

 

,

Defendant’s Flight Did Not Justify Police Pursuit and Entry Into Defendant’s Apartment—Evidence Properly Suppressed

The Second Department affirmed Supreme Court’s suppression of evidence.  Based upon a confidential informant’s vague description of a man who was about to be part of a drug sale, a police officer followed the defendant. The defendant started running and threw a small object away.  The defendant then entered an apartment with a key.  The police ultimately broke the door down and saw the defendant throw bags of marijuana and heroin out the window.   A subsequent search warrant turned up more drugs. The Second Department wrote:

“Police pursuit of an individual significantly impede[s]’ the person’s freedom of movement and thus must be justified by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed” … . Flight, combined with other specific circumstances indicating that the suspect may be engaged in criminal activity, could provide the predicate necessary to justify pursuit … . “Flight alone, however, or even in conjunction with equivocal circumstances that might justify a police request for information is insufficient to justify pursuit because an individual has a right to be let alone and refuse to respond to police inquiry” … .

Here, there were no specific circumstances indicating that the defendant might be engaged in criminal activity. The fact that the defendant matched the extremely vague description given by the informant of someone who would conduct a drug transaction somewhere in the vicinity, sometime later that day, was not sufficiently indicative of criminal activity … . * * *

Moreover, the detective compounded the unlawful pursuit by entering the apartment without consent or probable cause and exigent circumstances … . While retreat into one’s home cannot thwart an otherwise proper arrest set in motion in a public place, probable cause for the arrest is required … . When the detective entered the apartment, he did not have probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed a crime. Accordingly, all of the physical evidence was properly suppressed.  People v Nunez, 2013 NY Slip Op 07753, 2nd Dept 11-20-13

 

,

Police Violated Defendant’s Constitutional Rights by Pushing Door Open and Entering Apartment When Defendant Answered the Door—The “Payton” Violation (a Warrantless Arrest Inside Home) Mandated Suppression of Defendant’s Statement

Over a two-justice dissent, the Second Department determined defendant was arrested pursuant to a Payton violation (a warrantless arrest inside defendant’s home) and his subsequent statement should have been suppressed. The police were at defendant’s door with the complainant who told the police defendant had assaulted her.  When defendant opened the door, the complainant identified him as the assailant.  The defendant tried to shut the door, but the police pushed their way in and arrested him. The trial court felt there was no Payton violation the defendant’s attempt to shut the door after the identification was akin to “fleeing” or “exigent circumstances.”  The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Balkin, disagreed and wrote:

In Payton v New York (445 US 573), the United States Supreme Court announced a clear and easily applied rule with respect to warrantless arrests in the home: “the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant” (Payton v New York, 445 US at 590). The rule under the New York Constitution is the same (see NY Const, art 1, § 12; People v Levan, 62 NY2d 139, 144). Payton and Levan require suppression of the defendant’s statement under the clear, undisputed facts of this case.

Certainly, if the defendant’s encounter with the police had begun outside his home, or even on the threshold of it, the defendant could not have avoided arrest by fleeing into his home (see United States v Santana, 427 US 38, 43). But, contrary to the hearing court’s characterization, the defendant’s attempt to close his door was not “akin” to “fleeing”; he had never left the constitutionally protected interior of his home in the first place, even partially, so he did not flee “into” his home … . People v Gonzales, 2013 NY Slip Op 06381, 2nd Dept 10-2-13

 

,

Statute of Limitations Tolled Until Defendant Identified by DNA; Police Had “Tacit Consent” to Enter Apartment

The Fourth Department determined the statute of limitations was tolled until defendant was identified through DNA collected in an unrelated conviction.  In addition, the Fourth Department determined the police had “tacit consent” to enter defendant’s apartment:

Here, “[t]he record supports the court’s determination that the identity of defendant as the sexual assailant, and thus his whereabouts, were not ascertainable by diligent efforts” before 2008, when the State DNA Indexing System matched the DNA profile from the semen found on the victim’s night shirt with DNA obtained from defendant in conjunction with an unrelated 2007 conviction … .  * * *

Even assuming, arguendo, that there was a warrantless arrest of defendant in his apartment, we note that it is well settled that “tacit consent by a person with apparent authority . . . [is] sufficient to obviate any possible violation of the Payton rule”…. Here, the People established that the police officers entered the apartment with the consent of defendant’s father…. Although “the police may not have received express permission to enter the premises, [the] gesture [of defendant’s father] of opening the door, leaving it wide open, and then walking  away from it could certainly be interpreted by the police to consist of tacit approval for them to enter”….  People v Sigl, 716, 4th Dept, 6-14-13

 

,

“Exigent Circumstances” Exception to Search Warrant Requirement Applied

In finding the “exigent circumstances” exception to the search warrant requirement for entry into a private residence applied to the facts, the Third Department explained the criteria as follows:

The Court of Appeals has outlined three elements to determine whether exigent circumstances exist to justify entry without a warrant: “(1) The police must 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) The search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence. (3) There must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched” … .  The United States Supreme Court has since eliminated the intent element for 4th Amendment purposes … .  People v Musto, 105008, 3rd Dept, 5-30-13

 

 

,

Warrantless Arrest in Home in Absence of Exigent Circumstances Mandated Suppression; Package from Paraguay Addressed to Defendant Properly Opened as a “Border Search”

The Fourth Department determined drugs seized from defendant’s person incident to his arrest should have been suppressed because defendant’s warrantless arrest took place in his home in the absence of exigent circumstances. The court also noted that the search and seizure of a package from Paraguay addressed to defendant did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights because opening the package “constituted a border search … which may be conducted ‘without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country’ “… . People v Boyson, KA 11-01343, 229, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

SUPPRESSION, SEARCH

,

No Exigent Circumstances—Warrantless Search of Home Not Justified

In determining “exigent circumstances” did not exist and therefore the entry of the defendant’s home without a warrant was not justified, the Fourth Department wrote:

Factors to consider in determining whether exigent circumstances exist are “(1) the nature and degree of urgency involved and the amount of time needed to obtain a warrant; (2) a reasonable belief that the contraband is about to be removed; (3) the possibility of danger to police officers guarding the site of the contraband while a search warrant is sought[;] and (4) information indicating that the possessors of the contraband are aware that the police are on their trail” ….Here, the People failed to meet their burden of establishing that exigent circumstances existed to enter defendant’s apartment without a warrant … . The People established that, earlier that day, defendant sold drugs to a police agent inside his residence. In the afternoon, defendant again sold drugs to the police agent at a location outside his home. Defendant was arrested after that sale as he was driving his vehicle back toward his residence. The police went to defendant’s residence 45 minutes after his arrest and climbed through a window to make sure that no one was inside the residence who could destroy evidence before the police could obtain a warrant. Based on that evidence, we conclude that there was no urgency to enter defendant’s residence.  People v Coles, KA 10-02301, 226, 4th Dept, 4-26-13

SUPPRESS, SUPPRESSION, SEARCH

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