In re Pablo C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Pablo C.

220 A.D.2d 235, 631 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9816

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 5, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 235 (In re Pablo C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Pablo C., 220 A.D.2d 235, 631 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered November 5, 1993, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and placed him on probation for 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The hearing court correctly denied respondent’s motion to suppress the glass pipe with cocaine residue found in his possession on the ground that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry by the police into respondent’s apartment (see, People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177, cert denied 426 US 953). The evidence at the suppression hearing was that police officers, responding to a radio report of shots fired, were met by at least six witnesses at the indicated apartment building, who directed them to the sixth floor, where a neighbor told them that the shots came from respondent’s apartment. Respondent eventually answered after numerous knocks on the door, but refused to open the door stating that his parents were not home. Meanwhile, two officers on the roof saw a man fleeing the apartment by way of a fire escape who, when apprehended, although found to be unarmed, refused to answer any questions. According to procedure, the police contacted the Emergency Services Unit to break down the door. After an hour, the Unit arrived and broke down the door, whereupon the police seized respondent and another youth, and discovered the glass [236]*236pipe sticking out of respondent’s boot. Contrary to respondent’s contention, police concerns that someone in the apartment might be injured or otherwise in danger were reasonable and did not abate during the two-hour period that the police were at the scene but unable to enter the apartment. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered November 5, 1993, which adjudicated respondent a juvenile delinquent upon a fact-finding that he committed an act which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and placed him on probation for 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The hearing court correctly denied respondent’s motion to suppress the glass pipe with cocaine residue found in his possession on the ground that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry by the police into respondent’s apartment (see, People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177, cert denied 426 US 953). The evidence at the suppression hearing was that police officers, responding to a radio report of shots fired, were met by at least six witnesses at the indicated apartment building, who directed them to the sixth floor, where a neighbor told them that the shots came from respondent’s apartment. Respondent eventually answered after numerous knocks on the door, but refused to open the door stating that his parents were not home. Meanwhile, two officers on the roof saw a man fleeing the apartment by way of a fire escape who, when apprehended, although found to be unarmed, refused to answer any questions. According to procedure, the police contacted the Emergency Services Unit to break down the door. After an hour, the Unit arrived and broke down the door, whereupon the police seized respondent and another youth, and discovered the glass [236]*236pipe sticking out of respondent’s boot. Contrary to respondent’s contention, police concerns that someone in the apartment might be injured or otherwise in danger were reasonable and did not abate during the two-hour period that the police were at the scene but unable to enter the apartment. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 235, 631 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pablo-c-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack