warrant requirement in New York

2023Moreover, even if the defendant had [*2]standing, he does not challenge on appeal the court's alternate determination that the search was lawful under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement ( see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-681 ).

2023"Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime" ( People v Crum , 219 AD3d 625 , 626 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 ).

2024Footnote 2: The People do not contend that the emergency exception to the warrant requirement has any application here ( see generally Molnar , 98 NY2d at 332 ).

2022Indeed, though warrantless entries into a home are 'presumptively unreasonable' . . . , '[t]he touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness'—not the warrant requirement" ( People v Molnar , 98 NY2d 328, 331 [2002]).

2025The same is true of their argument that search of the bag was permissible under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement ( id. ; People v Mitchell , 39 NY2d 173, 177-178 [1976], cert denied 426 US 953 [1976]).

2022Defendant contends that the Criminal Court improperly determined that the police officer's warrantless entry into the apartment was justified pursuant to the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement, as there were no reasonable grounds to believe that an emergency existed and that there was an immediate need for the officer's assistance in order to protect life or property ( see People v Mitchell , 39 NY2d at 177-178 ).

2022The Supreme Court determined that the physical evidence was properly recovered pursuant [*2]to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement ( see People v Galak , 81 NY2d 463, 467 ; People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678 ), a legal theory not expressly argued by the People.

2020Police validly searched defendant's vehicle and the closed containers therein pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement ( see generally People v Galak , 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]; People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 [1989]).

2022The Supreme Court properly determined that the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception. "'Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime'" ( People v Thomas , 181 AD3d 831, 833 , quoting People v Vargas , 89 AD3d 771, 772 ; see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 ; People v Belton , 55 NY2d 49, 53-55 ). "'[I]f probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully sto

2022At the conclusion of the suppression hearing, the prosecutor did not argue that the pills were seized in the course of a search of the vehicle pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement ( see People v Belton , 55 NY2d at 53-55 ).

2019Warrantless searches and seizures within the privacy of the home are presumptively unreasonable, subject only to carefully circumscribed exceptions to the warrant requirement ( see People v Jenkins , 24 NY3d 62, 64 [2014]; People v Knapp , 52 NY2d 689, 694 [1981]).

2017This exception to the warrant requirement is narrowly construed, such that "'the scope of the conduct thus sanctioned is strictly limited by the necessities of the circumstances in which it arises'" (id.; see also Jenkins, 24 NY3d at 65 , citing People v Knapp, 52 NY2d 689, 696 [1981]).

2015Under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, the police may make a warrantless entry into a protected area if (1) they have reasonable grounds to believe that there was an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property; (2) the search was not primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there was some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched (see People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173 , 177 *1001 [1976]; People v Rodriguez, 77 AD3d 280, 283

2014Therefore, since Detective Anderson conducted a search without a warrant when he entered the defendant’s rear yard, the People were required to demonstrate that his entry was justified under some exception to the warrant requirement (see People v Rodriguez, 77 AD3d 280, 282-283 [2010]).

2024Under this “plain view doctrine, . . . law enforcement officers may properly seize an item in ‘plain view’ without a warrant if[,]” in pertinent part, “they are lawfully in a position to observe the item” (People v Brown, 96 NY2d 80, 89 [2001]).1 “[T]he fundamental justification for the plain view doctrine is that when the police are already lawfully in a position to make the observation, the discovery and seizure of contraband in plain view involve no intrusion on the individual’s constitutional rights beyond that already authorized by the warrant or some exception to the warrant requirement”

2022Warrantless searches are, as a general rule, per se unreasonable unless they fall within one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement ( see People v Sanders , 26 NY3d 773, 776 [2016]; People v Diaz , 81 NY2d 106, 109 [1993], abrogated on other grounds Minnesota v Dickerson , 508 US 366 [1993]; Matter of White v State of N.Y.

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]).

2020Nor was there any emergency or exigent circumstances, a narrow exception to the warrant requirement, to justify the police action at issue ( see Brigham City v Stuart , 547 US 398, 403 [2006]; People v Cruz , 149 AD2d 151, 159-160 [1989]).

2024The court reasoned that the officer's entry into defendant's residence was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a warrantless search where " '(1) the police . . . have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief [is] grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search [is] not . . . primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there [is] some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergenc

2021The court held that the initial search of the residence by the evidence technician was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a warrantless search in the presence of three elements: " '(1) the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief must be grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search must not be primarily motivated by an intent to arrest [*2]and seize evidence; and (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approxim

2021However, "[t]he automobile exception. . . is an exception only to the warrant requirement; it does not, in contrast to the search-incident-to-arrest exception, dispense with the requirement that there be probable cause to search the vehicle" ( People v Blasich , 73 NY2d at 678 , citing People v Langen , 60 NY2d 170, 181 [1983], cert denied 465 US 1028 [1984]).

2021However, "[t]he automobile exception. . . is an exception only to the warrant requirement; it does not, in contrast to the search-incident-to-arrest exception, dispense with the requirement that there be probable cause to search the vehicle" ( People v Blasich , 73 NY2d at 678 , citing People v Langen , 60 NY2d 170, 181 [1983], cert denied 465 US 1028 [1984]).

2025Inventory searches of a motor vehicle are a recognized exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment ( see Colorado v Bertine , 479 US 367, 371-372 [1987]; People v Galak , 80 NY2d 715, 716 [1993]; People v Sullivan , 29 NY2d 69, 71-72 [1971]).

2025The Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement makes exceptions for searches incident to arrest ( Chimel v California , 395 US 752 [1969]), automobiles searches ( Carroll v United States , 267 US 132 [1925]), administrative searches ( Marshall v Barlow's, Inc. , 436 US 307 [1978]), inventory searches ( Colorado v Bertine, 479 US 367 [1987]), and the common law right of inquiry (a/k/a "stop and frisk") ( Terry v Ohio , 392 US 1 [1968]).

2025Inventory searches of a motor vehicle are a recognized exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment ( see Colorado v Bertine , 479 US 367, 371-372 [1987]; People v Galak , 80 NY2d 715, 716 [1993]; People v Sullivan , 29 NY2d 69, 71-72 [1971]).

2024Suppression of Physical Evidence (Mapp) An inventory search of an impounded vehicle is an exception to the warrant requirement ( Colorado v Bertine , 479 U.S. 367 [1987]; People v Galak , 80 NY2d 715 [1993]).

2023For example, in People v Martin, 50 NY2d 1029, 1031 (1980), the defendant sought review of an unpreserved claim that he had been arrested inside his home without a warrant in violation of the rule announced a few months earlier in Payton v New York, 445 US 573 (1980).

2015Finally, although defendant contends that he was illegally arrested without a warrant in violation of Payton v New York ( 445 US 573 [1980]), the evidence establishes that defendant was arrested in the threshold of his apartment, and thus “defendant’s arrest did not implicate Payton rights” (People v Reynoso, 309 AD2d 769 , 770 [2003], affd 2 NY3d 820 [2004]; see People v Correa, 55 AD3d 1380, 1380 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 924 [2009]).

2024As relevant here, the People sought to establish that the plain view doctrine, an established exception to the warrant requirement, justified their seizure of the challenged tangible evidence—i.e., checks, a printer, and a computer discovered in defendant's living room ( see Messano , 41 NY3d at 232-233; see generally Arizona v Hicks , 480 US 321, 326 [1987]; Coolidge v New Hampshire , 403 US 443, 465 [1971 plurality]).

2023The United States Supreme Court first outlined third-party consent as an exception to the warrant requirement in Coolidge v New Hampshire ( 403 US 443 [1971]), Schneckcloth v Bustamonte ( 412 US 218 [1973]), and United States v Matlock ( 415 US 164 [194]).

2025Even if defendant may not have reasonably expected that his consent extended to the locked glove compartment ( see People v Gomez , 5 NY3d 416, 419 [2005]; Florida v Jimeno , 500 US 248, 251-252 [1991]), once the officer observed the gun and smelled gunpowder through a gap in the glove compartment, probable cause was established and the officer could search the locked container under both the Fourth Amendment and the automobile exception to the warrant requirement ( see People v Ellis , 62 NY2d 393, 398 [1984]).

2022The Supreme Court properly determined that the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception. "'Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime'" ( People v Thomas , 181 AD3d 831, 833 , quoting People v Vargas , 89 AD3d 771, 772 ; see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 ; People v Belton , 55 NY2d 49, 53-55 ). "'[I]f probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully sto

2016Accordingly, the police had probable cause (see generally Brinegar v United States, 338 US 160, 175 [1949]; People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417, 423 [1985]) to stop the car and search it under the automobile exception to the warrant requirement (see generally People v Galak, 81 NY2d 463, 467 [1993]).

2015Video, 68 NY2d 296, 304 [1986]; see also People v Scott, 79 NY2d 474, 478 [declining to adopt Supreme Court's holding that areas outside a home's curtilage enjoy no Fourth Amendment protection]; People v Harris, 77 NY2d 434, 438 [1991] [State Constitution requires suppression of statements obtained after Payton violation in absence of attenuation, even where statements would not have been suppressed under Federal Constitution]; People v Bigelow, 66 NY2d 417 , 426- 427 [1988] [rejecting good-faith exception to the warrant requirement]; Hancock, Jr., 77 Alb L Rev at 1332 ["when a New York court

2022Here, it is undisputed that the police lacked a warrant, and no exception to the warrant requirement applied to their entry onto the subject property ( see generally People v Sanders , 26 NY3d 773, 776 ; People v Gonzalez , 39 NY2d 122, 127 ).

2017Investigators must normally obtain a warrant, founded upon probable cause, to search a residence, but “one of the limited exceptions to the warrant requirement is voluntary consent” (People v Ortiz, 141 AD3d 872, 874 [2016]; see People v Gonzalez, 39 NY2d 122, 127 [1976]; People v Madden, 58 AD3d 1023, 1025 [2009]).

2024The court reasoned that the officer's entry into defendant's residence was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a warrantless search where " '(1) the police . . . have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief [is] grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search [is] not . . . primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence; and (3) there [is] some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergenc

2021The court held that the initial search of the residence by the evidence technician was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement, which permits a warrantless search in the presence of three elements: " '(1) the police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property and this belief must be grounded in empirical facts; (2) the search must not be primarily motivated by an intent to arrest [*2]and seize evidence; and (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approxim

2014While I recognize the several exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as “[when] the exigencies of the situation” render a warrantless search objectively reasonable (Mincey v Arizona, 437 US at 394 [internal quotation marks omitted]), I fear that the exceptions to the warrant requirement have swallowed the rule.

2014While I recognize the several exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as "when the exigencies of the situation" render a warrantless search objectively reasonable ( Mincey v Arizona , 437 US at 394 [internal quotation marks omitted]), I fear that the exceptions to the warrant requirement have swallowed the rule.

2023"Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime" ( People v Vargas , 89 AD3d 771, 772 ; see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 ; People v Babadzhanov , 204 AD3d 685, 686 ).

2022The Supreme Court properly determined that the warrantless search of the defendant's vehicle was permissible under the automobile exception. "'Pursuant to the automobile exception to the warrant requirement, a warrantless search of a vehicle is permitted when the police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband, a weapon, or evidence of a crime'" ( People v Thomas , 181 AD3d 831, 833 , quoting People v Vargas , 89 AD3d 771, 772 ; see People v Blasich , 73 NY2d 673, 678-679 ; People v Belton , 55 NY2d 49, 53-55 ). "'[I]f probable cause justifies the search of a lawfully sto