People v. Cloud

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Cloud

587 N.E.2d 270, 79 N.Y.2d 786, 579 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 5094

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 18, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 587 N.E.2d 270 (People v. Cloud) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Cloud, 587 N.E.2d 270, 79 N.Y.2d 786, 579 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 5094 (N.Y. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Whether exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless entry and arrest of defendant involves a mixed question of fact and law. Where, as here, there is support in the record for such an undisturbed finding, it is beyond the scope of further review by this Court (People v Burr, 70 NY2d 354, [787]*787360-361). Evidence in the record of this CPL article 440 proceeding supports the determination of the courts below that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry. On the morning of October 6, 1976, the police received direct and reliable information that defendant had admitted recently stealing a .38 caliber revolver and killing a delicatessen clerk within the course of a robbery, and that defendant, the weapon and potential innocent hostages were in a particular hotel room in Manhattan.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Whether exigent circumstances existed to justify the warrantless entry and arrest of defendant involves a mixed question of fact and law. Where, as here, there is support in the record for such an undisturbed finding, it is beyond the scope of further review by this Court (People v Burr, 70 NY2d 354, [787]*787360-361). Evidence in the record of this CPL article 440 proceeding supports the determination of the courts below that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry. On the morning of October 6, 1976, the police received direct and reliable information that defendant had admitted recently stealing a .38 caliber revolver and killing a delicatessen clerk within the course of a robbery, and that defendant, the weapon and potential innocent hostages were in a particular hotel room in Manhattan.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

587 N.E.2d 270, 79 N.Y.2d 786, 579 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1991 N.Y. LEXIS 5094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cloud-ny-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack