People v. Herring

Defendant’s motion to suppress was properly denied, the record before the hearing court clearly demonstrating that there existed sufficient exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless entry into the apartment, and that the statement in question was not the product of an unlawful custodial interrogation, but was spontaneously given in response to the officers’ investigatory inquiry as to what had occurred in the lobby of the building. (See, People v Huffman, 41 NY2d 29.) The officers had followed a trail of blood leading from the lobby, where a victim was bleeding profusely from a head…