New York Law Review

Tag: armed robbery

  • People v. McBride, 14 N.Y.3d 440 (2010): Warrantless Home Entry Based on Exigent Circumstances

    14 N.Y.3d 440 (2010)

    Exigent circumstances, such as a reasonable belief that someone inside a residence is in imminent danger, can justify a warrantless entry into a home, even if the police had time to obtain a warrant previously.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that police officers’ warrantless entry into the defendant’s apartment was justified by exigent circumstances. Although the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant for armed robbery and several days to obtain a warrant, they entered the apartment after a woman inside appeared distressed and unresponsive, leading them to believe she was in danger. The Court emphasized that the ultimate inquiry is whether an urgent need justified the entry, but also noted that obtaining a warrant would have been more prudent.

    Facts

    A man robbed a Cosi restaurant at gunpoint. An employee, Mangual, identified defendant McBride, a former employee, from a photo array. Mangual gave police a detailed physical description of the defendant. Police learned McBride was on parole and obtained his address. Three days after the robbery, at 11 PM, five officers went to McBride’s apartment. Hearing voices inside, they knocked and identified themselves, but no one answered. Some officers went to the fire escape, peered into a window, and saw a man lying on the floor. The police demanded the occupants open the door. A woman, Mitchell, eventually opened the door, appearing shaken and unable to speak clearly.

    Procedural History

    McBride was indicted for robbery. He pleaded guilty to attempted robbery after the trial court denied his motion to suppress evidence, arguing the police unlawfully entered his home and the lineup was suggestive. The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the police violated McBride’s Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure when they entered his apartment without a warrant.

    Holding

    No, because exigent circumstances justified the warrantless entry.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court acknowledged that warrantless entries are presumptively unreasonable, citing Payton v. New York. However, exigent circumstances can justify a warrantless entry to effectuate an arrest, provided probable cause exists. Factors indicating exigent circumstances include the gravity of the offense, whether the suspect is armed, probable cause to believe the suspect committed the crime, strong reason to believe the suspect is on the premises, likelihood of escape, and the peacefulness of the entry, citing United States v. Martinez-Gonzalez. Here, the crime was a violent armed robbery. There was strong reason to believe McBride was inside. The Court deferred to the lower courts’ factual findings that the police only entered after Mitchell opened the door and appeared to be in distress. The Court distinguished People v. Levan, noting that the police did not create the exigency. The Court noted it would have been more prudent to obtain a warrant but the presence of exigent circumstances ultimately legitimized the entry. The Court also found the lineup was not unduly suggestive, as the gray hooded sweatshirt worn by McBride was a “generic and common article of clothing.”

  • People v. Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 29 (1980): Reasonableness of Stop and Frisk Based on Suspicious Activity and Proximity to Crime

    People v. Benjamin, 51 N.Y.2d 29 (1980)

    When police officers have reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous, based on specific and articulable facts, they may conduct a stop and frisk, and the reasonableness of the officers’ actions must be viewed in light of the totality of the circumstances.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals held that police officers acted reasonably in ordering the defendant to lie on the ground to effectuate a stop and frisk. The officers had observed the defendant with a suspect who matched the description of an armed robbery perpetrator. The suspect was seen handing something to the defendant near the crime scene. The court reasoned that the officers’ actions were justified to ensure their safety and maintain the status quo while investigating a potential armed robbery. The single question, “Where is the gun?” was deemed a reasonable safety precaution and not a custodial interrogation requiring Miranda warnings.

    Facts

    Plainclothes officers observed three individuals, including Anthony Hernandez, huddled in a phone booth. Hernandez left the booth and repeatedly looked back towards it. An officer followed Hernandez, who entered a schoolyard and appeared to exchange something with the defendant, Benjamin. The officers received a radio report of a nearby armed robbery, and Hernandez matched the description of the suspect. As Hernandez and Benjamin walked towards the officers, they reversed direction upon seeing them. Officer Stryker identified himself, drew his revolver, and ordered Hernandez and Benjamin to lie face down on the ground.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court denied Benjamin’s motion to suppress the revolver and his statements. Benjamin pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. The dissenting Justice at the Appellate Division granted leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the police officers’ actions in ordering the defendant to lie on the ground, drawing their weapons, and asking about the location of the gun constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

    Holding

    No, because under the totality of the circumstances, the officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that the defendant was armed and dangerous, justifying the stop and frisk, and their actions were reasonable to ensure their safety and maintain the status quo.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals determined that the police activity constituted a “stop and frisk” rather than an arrest, as the intrusion was not of such magnitude as to constitute a de facto arrest requiring probable cause. The court emphasized that “[w]e are unaware of any statute or decisional authority that states that there is only one constitutionally acceptable manner of accomplishing a frisk.” Drawing weapons was justified given the officers’ belief that Hernandez had committed an armed robbery and might have passed the gun to Benjamin. The court reasoned that the officers were justified in taking precautionary measures to ensure their own safety. The court found that the officers had reasonable suspicion based on the totality of the circumstances, including Hernandez’s suspicious behavior, the radio report matching Hernandez’s description, and the observation of Hernandez handing something to Benjamin. Reasonable suspicion, not absolute certainty, is the applicable standard. The Court reasoned that the single question posed by Dieterich — “Where is the gun?” — was certainly justified in order to protect the officers’ welfare. The court concluded, “Courts simply must not, in this difficult area of street encounters between private citizens and law enforcement officers, attempt to dissect each individual act by the policemen; rather, the events must be viewed and considered as a whole, remembering that reasonableness is the key principle when undertaking the task of balancing the competing interests presented.” As stated in Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1, 27, “The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.”

  • People v. Spivey, 46 N.Y.2d 1014 (1979): Justification for Stop and Frisk Based on Reasonable Suspicion

    People v. Spivey, 46 N.Y.2d 1014 (1979)

    Police officers are justified in stopping and frisking a suspect when they have a reasonable suspicion, based on articulable facts, that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, and that the suspect is armed and dangerous.

    Summary

    The New York Court of Appeals addressed the legality of a stop and frisk conducted by police officers who had received a radio call about an armed robbery. The Court held that the officers’ actions were justified because the defendant matched the description of the robber, was in the vicinity of the crime, and acted suspiciously during questioning by refusing to provide his name and address and fidgeting with his hands. This case illustrates the application of the reasonable suspicion standard in the context of a rapidly unfolding investigation of a violent crime.

    Facts

    Police officers received a radio call informing them of an armed robbery. The defendant was walking on a deserted street in the vicinity of the crime and matched the description of the robber provided in the radio call. When questioned, the defendant refused to furnish his name or a specific address. The defendant repeatedly removed his hands from the radio car and shuffled them around. The officers observed suspicious bulges in the defendant’s jacket pockets.

    Procedural History

    The lower court ruled that the stop and frisk was unlawful, suppressing the evidence obtained. The prosecution appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether police officers, having received a radio call informing them of an armed robbery, were justified in stopping and frisking the defendant, who matched the description of the robber, was walking on a deserted street in the vicinity of the crime, and acted suspiciously during questioning?

    Holding

    Yes, because based on the totality of the circumstances, the officers had a reasonable suspicion that the defendant had committed an armed robbery and was armed and dangerous.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court reasoned that the police conduct was reasonable given the information available to the officers at the time of the stop and frisk. The Court relied on the following factors: the radio call informing them of an armed robbery, the defendant matching the description of the robber, the defendant’s presence in the vicinity of the crime, and the defendant’s suspicious behavior during questioning. Citing People v. Havelka, 45 NY2d 636, 640-641, the Court stated the officers were justified in stopping the defendant. The Court also found the limited pat-down was justified, explaining “Given this situation and defendant’s status as an armed-robbery suspect, it was quite reasonable for the officer to investigate the suspicious bulges in the jacket pockets.” This decision emphasizes the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances when evaluating the reasonableness of a stop and frisk. The ruling also highlights the diminished expectation of privacy in situations involving violent crimes and potential danger to the public. The Court did not elaborate on dissenting or concurring opinions.