92 A.D.3d 1277
N.Y. App. Div.2012Background
- In a prior appeal, we affirmed the conviction for criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance; the suppression ruling regarding evidence from the apartment was upheld.
- The Court of Appeals later required the People to alert the suppression court if standing was not met, remanding to address issues not resolved previously.
- Upon remittitur, the court found error in the suppression ruling, agreeing that evidence (buy money) was seized as a result of entry into the defendant's apartment.
- An undercover officer bought narcotics from the defendant near a small Rochester apartment building; a second officer identified the suspect from a description and location broadcast.
- Pursuing officers entered apartment No. 2 about 25 minutes after the sale; the buy money was recovered after the defendant was taken into custody.
- The warrantless intrusion into the apartment was presumptively unconstitutional unless justified by a carefully delineated exception; the People abandoned arguments about consent and argued hot pursuit/exigent circumstances originally.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the entry justified by hot pursuit? | People argued hot pursuit allowed entry. | Hunter argued there was no hot pursuit. | No hot pursuit justification. |
| Were exigent circumstances present to justify entry? | Factors showed urgency to enter without a warrant. | No exigent circumstances established. | Exigency not established; entry unjustified. |
| Did consent by the defendant's mother save the entry? | Mother's consent justified the entry (abandoned on appeal). | Consent could justify entry. | Consent argument abandoned; not relied on. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Molnar, 98 N.Y.2d 328 (N.Y. 2002) (presumption of unreasonableness of warrantless entry; exceptions required)
- People v. Mitchell, 39 N.Y.2d 173 (N.Y. 1976) (explanation of exigent circumstances and search regulations)
- United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (U.S. 1976) (hot pursuit and arrest in public place)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (U.S. 1984) (hot pursuit implications for private premises)
- People v. Ramos, 206 A.D.2d 260 (N.Y. 1994) (exigent circumstances analysis and entry)
- People v. Butler, 2 A.D.3d 1457 (N.Y. 2003) (abandonment of certain suppression arguments on appeal)
- People v. Hunter, 70 A.D.3d 1343 (N.Y. 2010) (prior appellate discussion on standing and suppression)
- People v. Hunter, 17 N.Y.3d 725 (N.Y. 2011) (Court of Appeals addressing standing and suppression procedure)