Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PEOPLE STATE NEW YORK v. LARRY BENTHALL (02/18/82)

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, TRIAL TERM, NEW YORK COUNTY 1982.NY.40856 <http://www.versuslaw.com>; 447 N.Y.S.2d 652; 112 Misc. 2d 731 February 18, 1982 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF,v.LARRY BENTHALL, DEFENDANT Joseph Panzer for defendant. Robert Morgenthau, District Attorney (Susan Braver of counsel), for plaintiff. Alfred H. Kleiman, J. Author: Kleiman


Alfred H. Kleiman, J.

Author: Kleiman

 OPINION OF THE COURT

The defendant was indicted for the crimes of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree. Upon the denial of his motion to suppress the defendant pleaded guilty to the charges.

For its findings of fact this court found that on April 15, 1980 the police, without a warrant, forcibly entered the apartment of the defendant and arrested him for the crime of murder which they had reasonable grounds to believe the defendant had committed. During an initial search of the immediate area of the arrest the police observed drug paraphernalia and the butt of a gun. While police officers searched the premises, and other officers took the defendant to the police precinct for booking on the homicide charge, the detectives, based primarily upon the information gathered during the initial arrest and search, obtained a warrant to search the premises. The detectives then returned to the apartment and conducted a full search during which the contraband which is the subject of this motion was seized.

The court held that the arrest without a warrant was lawful since the arresting officers had reasonable cause to believe the defendant had committed a homicide and were therefore justified in forcibly entering the premises pursuant to CPL 140.15 (subd 4). The court further held that the initial search was within the limits set forth in Chimel v California (395 U.S. 752). The ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.