exigency requirement in New York

2026Two policies underlie the exigency requirement: "the safety of the public and the arresting officer; and the protection of evidence from destruction or concealment" ( People v Jimenez , 22 NY3d 717, 722 [2014] [internal quotations marks and citation omitted]; see People v Crosse , 197 AD3d 792, 796 [3d Dept 2021]).

2026"The second, and equally important, predicate requires the People to demonstrate the presence of exigent circumstances" (<i>id.</i> at 722; <i>see</i> <i>People v Mosquito</i>, 197 AD3d at 505 ).</p> <p>The Court of Appeals has identified two interests underlying the exigency requirement, namely, "the safety of the public and the arresting officer; and the protection of evidence from destruction or concealment" (<i>People v Gokey</i>, 60 NY2d 309, 312 ; <i>see</i> <i>People v Jimenez</i>, 22 NY3d at 722 ; <i>People v Hernandez</i>, 40 AD3d at 779 ).

2026"The second, and equally important, predicate requires the People to demonstrate the presence of exigent circumstances" (<i>id.</i> at 722; <i>see</i> <i>People v Mosquito</i>, 197 AD3d at 505 ).</p> <p>The Court of Appeals has identified two interests underlying the exigency requirement, namely, "the safety of the public and the arresting officer; and the protection of evidence from destruction or concealment" (<i>People v Gokey</i>, 60 NY2d 309, 312 ; <i>see</i> <i>People v Jimenez</i>, 22 NY3d at 722 ; <i>People v Hernandez</i>, 40 AD3d at 779 ).

2020"The Court of Appeals has recognized two interests underlying the exigency requirement: the safety of the public and the arresting officer; and the protection of evidence from destruction or concealment'" ( People v Anderson , 142 AD3d at 714 , quoting People v Gokey , 60 NY2d at 312 ; see People v Jimenez , 22 NY3d at 722 ). "[E]ven a bag within the immediate control or "grabbable area" of a suspect at the time of his [or her] arrest may not be subjected to a warrantless search incident to the arrest, unless the circumstances leading to the arrest support a reasonable belief that the suspect

2020"While an officer need not affirmatively testify as to safety concerns to establish exigency, such apprehension must be objectively reasonable" ( People v Jimenez , 22 NY3d at 723 ; see People v Batista , 88 NY2d 650, 654 ; People v Moore , 32 NY2d 67, 72 ).

2016“While an officer need not affirmatively testify as to safety concerns to establish exigency, such apprehension must be objectively reasonable” (People v Jimenez, 22 NY3d at 723 ; see People v Batista, 88 NY2d 650, 654 [1996]; People v Moore, 32 NY2d 67, 72 [1973]).

2020"While an officer need not affirmatively testify as to safety concerns to establish exigency, such apprehension must be objectively reasonable" ( People v Jimenez , 22 NY3d at 723 ; see People v Batista , 88 NY2d 650, 654 ; People v Moore , 32 NY2d 67, 72 ).

2016“While an officer need not affirmatively testify as to safety concerns to establish exigency, such apprehension must be objectively reasonable” (People v Jimenez, 22 NY3d at 723 ; see People v Batista, 88 NY2d 650, 654 [1996]; People v Moore, 32 NY2d 67, 72 [1973]).

2019In promulgating the exigency requirement, the Court of Appeals recognized that a [*7]constitutionally protected privacy interest remained in a closed container even after a defendant's arrest ( People v DeSantis , 46 NY2d 82, 88 [1978], cert denied 443 US 912 [1979] ["To be sure, the arrest of [the] defendant, standing alone, did not destroy whatever privacy interests he had in the contents of the suitcase"]).

1985(People v De Santis, supra.) There is no difficulty finding earlier authority to emphasize the logic of the de minimus intrusion approach.

2026Two policies underlie the exigency requirement: "the safety of the public and the arresting officer; and the protection of evidence from destruction or concealment" ( People v Jimenez , 22 NY3d 717, 722 [2014] [internal quotations marks and citation omitted]; see People v Crosse , 197 AD3d 792, 796 [3d Dept 2021]).

2024Alternatively, if the officer observed one of the car's occupants in physical distress, the Fourth Amendment permitted the officer to respond to what he perceived as an imminent emergency, and his conduct would have been evaluated under the well-established exigency exception to the warrant requirement ( see Stuart , 547 US at 403 [observing that the "exigency" of "emergency (aid)" requires officers to have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant—there, of a home—is "seriously injured or (imminently) threatened with such injury" before acting without a warrant]).