New York Court of Appeals, 1994

People v. Love

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 1, 1994 · Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick Concur

644 N.E.2d 1365; 84 N.Y.2d 917; 620 N.Y.S.2d 809; 1994 N.Y. LEXIS 3393 (North Eastern Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

21 later published cases cite this decision.

People v. Liggins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
People v. Longboat (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
People v. Caruth (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2026)
People v. Maragh (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
People v. Gibson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Gibson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
People v. Bryant (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
People v. Flores (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
People v. Goodwin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
People v. Rivera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Rivera (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. Jamison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
People v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. Crumes (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
People v. Ingram (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Dwyer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1997)
People v. Robinson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Barry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
People v. Muscoreil (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Wiemeier (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
People v. Platz (New York County Courts 1994)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

The courts below did not err in determining that the police officers’ entrance into the hotel room was the result of a reasonably perceived emergency excusing the warrant requirement and that, consequently, their observation and seizure of the contraband in plain view was lawful (see, People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173, 177-178, cert denied 426 US 953). The nature and specificity of the police radio transmissions, their close temporal proximity, the reputation of the hotel as a locale for drug and prostitution activity, and the hostile reception by Sonya Cook, a woman in the room when the police officers knocked on the door, all support the finding of reasonableness of the perception that there was an emergency. Further, there is an undisturbed factual finding, supported by the record, that the search was not primarily motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, which finding is binding on this

*919 Court (see, Mitchell, supra, at 178). Finally, there was a reasonable association between the emergency and the place to be searched that was not disputed by the parties and, indeed, the specificity of both police radio transmissions leaves no doubt as to this association.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.