People v. Volpe

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Volpe

457 N.E.2d 794, 60 N.Y.2d 803, 469 N.Y.S.2d 688, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3487

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 27, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 457 N.E.2d 794 (People v. Volpe) 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. Volpe, 457 N.E.2d 794, 60 N.Y.2d 803, 469 N.Y.S.2d 688, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3487 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Police officers entered defendant’s apartment without a warrant after a Federal agent and the officers overheard incriminating conversations from inside the apartment. Defendant argues that a finding of probable cause cannot be sustained because the agent and officers were not lawfully present in the hallway outside his apartment, *805 having failed to establish that their entry into the common areas of the locked, restricted access multiple-unit dwelling was authorized. Examination of the record of the suppression hearing reveals, however, that the legality of these officers’ presence in the building was never questioned by defendant and that argument is thus not preserved for review by this court (People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029). To the extent defendant has argued that the information available to the officers was otherwise insufficient to support the finding of probable cause and exigent circumstances for the warrantless entry, he has failed to raise a reviewable issue of law, given the affirmance of the suppression court’s findings on these issues (see People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

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.

Police officers entered defendant’s apartment without a warrant after a Federal agent and the officers overheard incriminating conversations from inside the apartment. Defendant argues that a finding of probable cause cannot be sustained because the agent and officers were not lawfully present in the hallway outside his apartment, *805 having failed to establish that their entry into the common areas of the locked, restricted access multiple-unit dwelling was authorized. Examination of the record of the suppression hearing reveals, however, that the legality of these officers’ presence in the building was never questioned by defendant and that argument is thus not preserved for review by this court (People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029). To the extent defendant has argued that the information available to the officers was otherwise insufficient to support the finding of probable cause and exigent circumstances for the warrantless entry, he has failed to raise a reviewable issue of law, given the affirmance of the suppression court’s findings on these issues (see People v Harrison, 57 NY2d 470).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 N.E.2d 794, 60 N.Y.2d 803, 469 N.Y.S.2d 688, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-volpe-ny-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack