403 U.S. 443 (1971) Cited 7,815 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that police who obtained evidence voluntarily from a suspect's wife did not need a search warrant because the officers exerted no effort to coerce or dominate her and were not obligated to refuse her offer to take the evidence
494 U.S. 325 (1990) Cited 2,355 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that, incident to arrest, an officer may conduct a limited protective sweep of those areas of a house in which he reasonably suspects a dangerous person may be hiding
387 U.S. 294 (1967) Cited 2,677 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Fourth Amendment allows a search for evidence when there is "probable cause ... to believe that the evidence sought will aid in a particular apprehension or conviction"
Holding that inclusion of co-defendant's statement did not violate Confrontation Clause since it did not specifically name the other defendants or describe them in such a manner that the jury would connect them to the statement
Holding that when an entry is made pursuant to the emergency exception, the court should consider whether it was primarily motivated by the intent to arrest and seize evidence
In Adams, we held that under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, if "the searching officers rely in good faith on the apparent capability of an individual to consent to a search and the circumstances reasonably indicate that that individual does, in fact, have the authority to consent, evidence obtained as the result of such a search should not be suppressed" (53 N.Y.2d at 9-10).
Holding that although PSR identified only three individuals with particularity, sufficient facts permit conclusion that "[i]n aggregate" there were five participants
Holding that although the discovery of a kidnap victim locked in an apartment provided exigency for entry, there was no exigency to search for and remove weapons from a closet once the victim was located
In People v. Molnar (98 N.Y.2d 328), the Court upheld a warrantless entry into an apartment, holding that "[d]efining an emergency with the rigidity defendant proposes may encourage police-so as to give their actions the appearance of an emergency — to break in prematurely * * * [T]he appropriately measured response of the police should not be declared illegal merely because they thoughtfully delayed entry for a relatively brief time" (People v. Molnar, supra at 334).
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 3473 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 83 times
In McBride, the Court identified some such factors relied on by other courts—ranging from whether the police have probable cause to believe a defendant is the perpetrator of the crime, to the likelihood that a defendant will escape if not swiftly apprehended.