People v. Guzman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Guzman

297 A.D.2d 244, 746 N.Y.2d 481, 746 N.Y.S.2d 481, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8048

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

DecidedAugust 22, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 297 A.D.2d 244 (People v. Guzman) 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

People v. Guzman, 297 A.D.2d 244, 746 N.Y.2d 481, 746 N.Y.S.2d 481, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8048 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The record supports the court’s finding that the officers’ intrusion was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement (see, People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177-178, cert denied 426 US 953). The totality of the information possessed by the police, including the developing circumstances at defendant’s apartment, warranted a reasonable belief that defendant was restraining, and possibly abusing, his girlfriend inside the premises. Rather than entering the apartment, the police took the more limited measure of removing the peephole on the apartment door. This was not motivated by an intent to make an arrest or to seize evidence; rather, the officers utilized the hole created in the door to assess the situation visually and eventually to convince defendant to allow his girlfriend to exit. Since the removal of the peephole and the resultant police observations were lawful under the circumstances, the court properly denied suppression of contraband that was ultimately recovered from the apartment as the result of a chain of events that began with these observations. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

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

Defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied. The record supports the court’s finding that the officers’ intrusion was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement (see, People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177-178, cert denied 426 US 953). The totality of the information possessed by the police, including the developing circumstances at defendant’s apartment, warranted a reasonable belief that defendant was restraining, and possibly abusing, his girlfriend inside the premises. Rather than entering the apartment, the police took the more limited measure of removing the peephole on the apartment door. This was not motivated by an intent to make an arrest or to seize evidence; rather, the officers utilized the hole created in the door to assess the situation visually and eventually to convince defendant to allow his girlfriend to exit. Since the removal of the peephole and the resultant police observations were lawful under the circumstances, the court properly denied suppression of contraband that was ultimately recovered from the apartment as the result of a chain of events that began with these observations. Concur — Saxe, J.P., Buckley, Rosenberger, Friedman and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

297 A.D.2d 244, 746 N.Y.2d 481, 746 N.Y.S.2d 481, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-guzman-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack