133 A.D.3d 794
N.Y. App. Div.2015Background
- Plainclothes NYPD officers observed Wayne Scott walking in the street and spoke with him; Scott turned and ran when officers exited their vehicle.
- An officer driving saw what appeared to be the handle of a gun in Scott’s waistband; officers pursued him through yards and Scott entered his home through a rear door, abandoning a knapsack on the fence.
- ESU (Emergency Services Unit) was summoned; ESU cleared basement and first floor, then Scott surrendered from the second-floor stairway and was arrested; no weapon found on his person.
- After ESU secured the house and Scott was in custody outside, patrol officers entered the second floor and found drugs on a nightstand and a firearm wrapped in a bandana in a closed storage bin; five bags of marijuana were found in the abandoned knapsack.
- Supreme Court suppressed the gun but denied suppression of the other physical evidence, finding the initial entry justified under the emergency exception and that subsequent discovery was in plain view.
- On appeal, the Second Department ruled the warrantless evidentiary search exceeded any exigency, suppressed all physical evidence from the home, and dismissed two counts charging possession of larger quantities of marijuana for insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initial warrantless entry/search of home was justified by emergency exception | Officers reasonably believed an emergency existed because they saw a gun on Scott and did not know if others inside were endangered | No reasonable basis to believe an emergency existed inside the house once ESU secured premises and Scott was in custody | Court: People failed to prove the first Mitchell prong — no reasonable basis for imminent emergency inside house; entry not justified on that ground |
| Whether evidentiary search after ESU secured house was lawful without warrant | Continued police presence and plain view observation justified search and seizure of items | Any exigency had abated; search became an evidentiary search requiring a warrant | Court: Patrol officers’ search exceeded scope/duration of exigency; warrant required; evidence suppressed |
| Whether items in plain view may be seized after illegal entry | Plain view allows seizure of contraband observed during lawful presence | Plain view doctrine cannot validate evidence discovered after an illegal warrantless entry | Court: Plain view does not cure an unlawful entry; suppression required |
| Sufficiency of evidence to convict on counts charging >25 grams of marijuana from knapsack | Knapsack contents attributable to Scott and quantity met statutory threshold | Officer could not identify marijuana as the specific 25+ grams recovered; insufficient proof of quantity by Scott | Court: People failed to prove possession of >25 grams from knapsack; counts 5 and 7 dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (US 2006) (emergency-entry principles and exigent-circumstances analysis)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (US 1980) (warrantless entry into a home to make a routine felony arrest generally unreasonable)
- Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (US 1978) (scope/duration of warrantless searches limited by exigency)
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (US 1976) (hot pursuit may justify warrantless entry into a dwelling)
- People v. Knapp, 52 N.Y.2d 689 (N.Y. 1981) (framework for evaluating warrantless entries and plain-view seizures)
- People v. Jenkins, 24 N.Y.3d 62 (N.Y. 2014) (warrant required once exigency has abated; limits on post-exigency searches)