People v. Gallmon, 19 N.Y.2d 380 (1967)

A police officer’s entry into private premises to investigate a disturbance, as opposed to making an arrest, does not require announcement of office and purpose under Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Summary

Gallmon was convicted of possessing narcotics instruments after police entered his room without announcing their presence and seized evidence. The police were responding to a noise complaint from the building manager. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the police entry was investigatory, not for the purpose of arrest, and therefore, the announcement requirement of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply. The court emphasized the distinction between a private dwelling and a rooming house where the landlord retains a right of access for reasonable purposes. The court reasoned that the police were assisting the manager in his duty to maintain order and investigate disturbances.

Facts

A police officer, responding to a radio call about a “disorderly man” at a rooming house, was directed to Gallmon’s room by the night manager. The officer heard loud noises coming from the room. After the officer knocked, a voice inside said, “Wait a minute. Wait a minute, I’m not dressed.” After a minute, the officer had the manager open the door with a passkey. The officer found Gallmon stripped to the waist, holding a syringe, and the officer arrested Gallmon and seized the narcotics instrument.

Procedural History

Gallmon was convicted in the Criminal Court of the City of New York for possession of narcotics instruments. Prior to his guilty plea, Gallmon moved to suppress the evidence, arguing it was obtained through an unlawful entry. The motion to suppress was denied. The Appellate Term affirmed the conviction, and leave to appeal was granted by a judge of the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the police officer’s entry into the defendant’s room without announcing his office and purpose violated Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thus rendering the subsequent arrest and seizure of evidence unlawful.

Holding

No, because the officer’s entry was investigatory, not for the purpose of making an arrest; therefore, the announcement requirements of Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that Section 178, requiring announcement of office and purpose, only applies when the officer’s purpose is to make an arrest. In this case, the officer was responding to a disturbance call and was investigating the situation, not initially intending to make an arrest. The court emphasized that police officers have a duty to assist people in distress and investigate disturbances, functions that are independent of criminal law enforcement. The court distinguished this case from situations involving private dwellings, noting that in a rooming house, the landlord (and by extension, the police assisting the landlord) retains a right of access for reasonable purposes, such as investigating disturbances. The court cited de Wolf v. Ford, 193 N.Y. 397, for the proposition that an innkeeper has a right of access to a guest’s room “at such proper times and for such reasonable purposes as may be necessary in the general conduct of the inn or in attending to the needs of the particular guest.” The court cautioned that trial courts must carefully scrutinize claims of “investigatory entries” to prevent abuse, recognizing the factual inference that an entry leading to arrest or seizure was for the purpose of arrest or seizure. However, in this case, the court found sufficient objective evidence, including the disturbance call and the manager’s purpose, to justify the investigatory entry. The court also noted that even a private individual might make such an entry if it reasonably appears that his intrusion and presence would avert injury to the occupant or his chattels. The fact that a crime was discovered does not retroactively invalidate the entry if the officer’s intent prior to entry was investigatory and privileged. The court distinguished Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23, noting that in Ker, the entry was for the purpose of making an arrest, which was not the case here. The court noted: “Perhaps it is of the greatest significance to this case that the police officer’s entry was pursuant to his general obligation to assist people in distress — a purpose often independent of considerations affecting the criminal law.”