People v. Love

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Love

644 N.E.2d 1365, 84 N.Y.2d 917, 620 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 3393

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 1, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 644 N.E.2d 1365 (People v. Love) 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. Love, 644 N.E.2d 1365, 84 N.Y.2d 917, 620 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 3393 (N.Y. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The courts below did not err in determining that the police officers’ entrance into the hotel room was the result of a reasonably perceived emergency excusing the warrant requirement and that, consequently, their observation and seizure of the contraband in plain view was lawful (see, People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177-178, cert denied 426 US 953). The nature and specificity of the police radio transmissions, their close temporal proximity, the reputation of the hotel as a locale for drug and prostitution activity, and the hostile reception by Sonya Cook, a woman in the room when the police officers knocked on the door, all support the finding of reasonableness of the perception that there was an emergency. Further, there is an undisturbed factual finding, supported by the record, that the search was not primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, which finding is binding on this

*919 Court (see, Mitchell, supra, at 178). Finally, there was a reasonable association between the emergency and the place to be searched that was not disputed by the parties and, indeed, the specificity of both police radio transmissions leaves no doubt as to this association.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick 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.

The courts below did not err in determining that the police officers’ entrance into the hotel room was the result of a reasonably perceived emergency excusing the warrant requirement and that, consequently, their observation and seizure of the contraband in plain view was lawful (see, People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177-178, cert denied 426 US 953). The nature and specificity of the police radio transmissions, their close temporal proximity, the reputation of the hotel as a locale for drug and prostitution activity, and the hostile reception by Sonya Cook, a woman in the room when the police officers knocked on the door, all support the finding of reasonableness of the perception that there was an emergency. Further, there is an undisturbed factual finding, supported by the record, that the search was not primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, which finding is binding on this

*919 Court (see, Mitchell, supra, at 178). Finally, there was a reasonable association between the emergency and the place to be searched that was not disputed by the parties and, indeed, the specificity of both police radio transmissions leaves no doubt as to this association.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick 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)

644 N.E.2d 1365, 84 N.Y.2d 917, 620 N.Y.S.2d 809, 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 3393, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-love-ny-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack