People v. Lo Cicero

267 N.E.2d 885, 28 N.Y.2d 525, 319 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1617
New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 7, 1971·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[527]*527Judgment affirmed in the following memorandum: There was probable cause for the arrest, and the entrance into the apartment to effect that arrest, based on the observations through the partly opened door coupled with the information the police had obtained previously. Assuming that the ensuing search was wider than permitted under the rule in Chimel v. California (395 U. S. 752), there is no need or warrant to accord retroactive effect to that rule to a search and an action fully tried before the decision in that case (see People v. DeRenzzio, 19 N Y 2d 45; People ex rel. Cadogan v. McMann, 24 N Y 2d 233, and cases cited).

Concur: Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson.

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

People v. Lo Cicero, 267 N.E.2d 885, 28 N.Y.2d 525, 319 N.Y.S.2d 72, 1971 N.Y. LEXIS 1617 (N.Y. 1971).

267 N.E.2d 885 (People v. Lo Cicero) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Danziger
41 N.Y. 1092 (New York Court of Appeals, 1977)
People v. Morales
333 N.E.2d 339 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)