Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
People v. Gibson
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided May 29, 2014Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRose, J.
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the People established the existence of emergency circumstances justifying the warrantless *1323entry into defendant’s apartment and, therefore, respectfully dissent from that part of the decision.
Warrantless searches and seizures within the privacy of the home are presumptively unreasonable, and the People bear the burden of establishing that the police conduct at issue falls within a carefully circumscribed exception to the warrant requirement (see Payton v New York, 445 US 573, 586 [1980]; Vale v Louisiana, 399 US 30, 34 [1970]; People v Knapp, 52…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Maryland v. BuieSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Vale v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- People v. GonzalezNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- People v. KnappNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.