People v. Mathis

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Zuluaga

    148 A.D.2d 480 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)   Cited 11 times

    We further conclude that the hearing court properly denied suppression of the physical evidence since the record shows that the defendant was arrested and the weapon located in the home of his sister-in-law, who clearly gave her knowing and voluntary oral and written consent to a search of the premises (see, People v Cosme, 48 N.Y.2d 286; People v. Messam, 112 A.D.2d 449, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 616). In any event, an application of the factors set forth in People v. Mathis ( 132 A.D.2d 626, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 801), established that the search was justified under the exigent circumstances exception as (1) the crime was a cold-blooded murder in a bungled robbery attempt, (2) the weapon was a gun and there was good reason to believe that the defendant was armed, (3) the codefendant informed the police of the defendant's commission of the crime, (4) the codefendant entered the premises moments before the police and confirmed that the defendant and his weapon were inside, and (5) there was a possibility of escape. Accordingly, those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements were properly denied.

  2. People v. Dominquez

    141 A.D.2d 833 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)   Cited 10 times

    However, where exigent circumstances exist, the failure of the police to procure a warrant is excusable (Payton v New York, supra; People v Mealer, 57 N.Y.2d 214, cert denied 460 U.S. 1024). In determining whether exigent circumstances exist so as to justify such an entry the following factors must be considered: "`(1) the gravity of the offense; (2) whether there is reason to believe that the suspect is armed; (3) whether there is reasonably trustworthy information to believe that the suspect committed the crime involved; (4) whether there is a strong reason to believe that the suspect is in the premises being entered; and, (5) likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended (Dorman v United States, 435 F.2d 385; see also, People v Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029, 1031, n 2)'" (People v Mathis, 132 A.D.2d 626, 628, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 801; see also, People v Gordon, 110 A.D.2d 778, 780). After the commission of the crime, the police obtained a statement from a coperpetrator implicating the defendant in the abduction, robbery and assault of the victim.