People v. Kelly
| Decision Date | 02 July 1981 |
| Citation | 442 N.Y.S.2d 188,83 A.D.2d 648 |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Peter KELLY, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lloyd BREEN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Irving Anolik, New York City, for appellant Kelly.
Jay A. Kaplan, Kingston, for appellant Breen.
E. Michael Kavanagh, Ulster County Dist. Atty., Kingston (Susan Shaw, Kingston, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and SWEENEY, CASEY, WEISS and HERLIHY, JJ.
Appeals from judgments of the County Court of Ulster County, rendered April 20, 1979, convicting defendants upon their pleas of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree.
On October 21, 1977, a New Paltz police officer stopped a car driven by Kelly and issued him a speeding ticket. Two passengers in the car, defendant Breen and Karrie Siegler, informed the officer that they were returning Karrie Siegler to her college dormitory. Noticing that the muffler on the car was dragging, Officer Burchel told defendant Kelly to stop at the next service station to have it repaired. In contravention of the officer's orders, defendants drove into a service station, made a U-turn without stopping and proceeded in an opposite direction from the college. The officer followed the car, saw it make another U-turn and drive into the Thunderbird Motel.
Concerned for the safety of the young woman, the officer radioed his sergeant. Together they inquired of the motel manager and learned that the driver of the car had registered under a false name. They then proceeded to the motel room door, knocked and sought admission to investigate. Defendant Breen opened the door and an aroma of marihuana drifted from the room. Upon entering the room, the officers saw Ms. Siegler extinguishing a marihuana cigarette; they also saw marihuana butts in several ashtrays in the room. As a result, the officers placed the three people in the room under arrest and also opened two opaque plastic garbage bags which were in the room. The bags contained approximately 20 pounds of marihuana and were seized. The defendants were indicted for criminal possession of marihuana in the first degree and two counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance. * Defendants' motion to suppress the evidence seized during the arrest was denied and they ultimately pleaded guilty to criminal possession of marihuana in the second degree. These appeals ensued.
Defendants contend, inter alia, that the warrantless search of the motel room violated their constitutional rights. We disagree.
While we recognize that the privacy interests sought to be protected by the Fourth Amendment attach to persons in motel rooms (Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436), where, as here, there was a justifiable basis for the police officers to enter and investigate, we cannot conclude that the officers violated defendants' constitutional rights (see ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Boyd
...v. Gallmon, 19 N.Y.2d 389, 280 N.Y.S.2d 356, 227 N.E.2d 284; People v. Lenart, supra, 91 A.D.2d 132, 457 N.Y.S.2d 878; People v. Kelly, 83 A.D.2d 648, 442 N.Y.S.2d 188). However, an emergency is, by definition, any sudden, unexpected state of affairs that calls for immediate action (Webster......
-
People v. Stringfellow
...N.E.2d 607 cert. den. 426 U.S. 953, 96 S.Ct. 3178, 49 L.Ed.2d 1191; People v. Lenart, 91 A.D.2d 132, 457 N.Y.S.2d 878; People v. Kelly, 83 A.D.2d 648, 422 N.Y.S.2d 188). The defendant allowed the police to enter to mediate the The drug paraphernalia, resting on a safe inside an open walkin ......
-
People v. Lenart
...grounds to believe that there was an "immediate need" of police assistance for the protection of life and property (see People v. Kelly, 83 A.D.2d 648, 442 N.Y.S.2d 188). Furthermore, Parlefsky testified, and a reasonable interpretation of the facts indicates, that the search of the apartme......
-
People v. Schobert
...possibility that the contraband might be destroyed, justified an immediate arrest and search (CPL 140.10, subd. 1; People v. Kelly, 83 A.D.2d 648, 649, 442 N.Y.S.2d 188, affd. 56 N.Y.2d 873, 453 N.Y.S.2d 397, 438 N.E.2d 1112; People v. Chestnut, 43 A.D.2d 260, 351 N.Y.S.2d 26, affd. 36 N.Y.......