People v. Harley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harley

188 A.D.2d 423, 591 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14512

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 423 (People v. Harley) 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. Harley, 188 A.D.2d 423, 591 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin J. Rettinger, J.), entered March 1, 1991, which suppressed physical evidence under indictment number 8163/90 charging defendants with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly granted defendants’ motion to suppress the warrantless recovery of drugs from within a metal safe located in defendants’ apartment premises. Once the pursuing police apprehended the fleeing suspected felon in the foyer area of the apartment, the officers had conducted a [424]*424protective sweep of the entire apartment premises and secured all occupants, the exigencies of hot pursuit circumstances ceased (see, Arizona v Hicks, 480 US 321, 325). The arresting officer’s subsequent action of placing himself in a position to peer into the metal safe, the interior of which initially was not readily visible, constituted an intrusion unjustified by the exigent circumstances that validated the initial warrantless entry into the apartment (supra). The drugs in question, uncovered only when the officer reached into the safe and removed a sum of currency observed therein, clearly cannot be considered recoverable under the plain view doctrine (see, People v Jackson, 41 NY2d 146, 150). Concur— Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin J. Rettinger, J.), entered March 1, 1991, which suppressed physical evidence under indictment number 8163/90 charging defendants with criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third and fourth degrees, unanimously affirmed.

The hearing court properly granted defendants’ motion to suppress the warrantless recovery of drugs from within a metal safe located in defendants’ apartment premises. Once the pursuing police apprehended the fleeing suspected felon in the foyer area of the apartment, the officers had conducted a [424]*424protective sweep of the entire apartment premises and secured all occupants, the exigencies of hot pursuit circumstances ceased (see, Arizona v Hicks, 480 US 321, 325). The arresting officer’s subsequent action of placing himself in a position to peer into the metal safe, the interior of which initially was not readily visible, constituted an intrusion unjustified by the exigent circumstances that validated the initial warrantless entry into the apartment (supra). The drugs in question, uncovered only when the officer reached into the safe and removed a sum of currency observed therein, clearly cannot be considered recoverable under the plain view doctrine (see, People v Jackson, 41 NY2d 146, 150). Concur— Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 423, 591 N.Y.S.2d 1011, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harley-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack